ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1) , TIRUPATI vs. VENKATA SWAMY RAVURI , CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

920/-\nThe appellant contends that the index cost of acquisition shall also\nbe joined with index cost of improvement to determine the Long Term\nCapital Gain. The Balance Sheet of the assessee as on 31/03/2017 was\nexamined and schedule indicates the list of fixed assets, valued as on\n31/03/2017. The said land at Hyderabad was valued at Rs.36

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

920 72,99,24,480 73,49,93,400 from Bharathi Cements (Rs.6,600 treated as misc. charges) Total 6,89,649 68,96,490 99,30,94,560 99,99,91,050 The appellant further submitted as follows : Page 4 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas Pvt Ltd A. In the assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

920 72,99,24,480 73,49,93,400 from Bharathi Cements (Rs.6,600 treated as misc. charges) Total 6,89,649 68,96,490 99,30,94,560 99,99,91,050 The appellant further submitted as follows : Page 4 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas Pvt Ltd A. In the assessment order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

SRINIVAS PAMPATI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

920/-. On the basis of information available with the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”), it was found that during the year under consideration the assessee had not offered capital gains on transfer of immovable property of Rs.1,71,13,333/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO reopened the case of the assessee under section

HANMANDLU PAMPATI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

920/-. On the basis of\ninformation available with the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”),\nit was found that during the year under consideration the assessee\nhad not offered capital gains on transfer of immovable property of\nRs.1,71,13,333/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO reopened the case of the\nassessee under section

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: 18. Section 80 IA (8) refers to the assessee carrying on the eligible business with the other person with whom the assessee has a close connection, and the business

ADAMALA MOHANA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2009-10 Adamala Mohana Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Afbpa7072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.Balakrishna, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2024

gains escaped assessment for the A.Y.2009-10 since the assessee has not furnished any evidence. The assessee in her reply explained that since the pension received by her for the A.Y.2009-10 is below taxable limit, she did not file her return of income for the A.Y.2009- 3 10. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice

SHAKUNTALA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ms. Shakuntala Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aeepd0217J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2024

section 282 of the Act r.w. rule 127 of the Rules, and therefore Appellant could not put forth his case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant is aged 70 is not fully acquainted with the online proceedings and emails, and therefore could not respond to notices allegedly sent. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

Capital Gain as the income assessable u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 7) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered all the other grounds of appeal before deciding the appeal ex-parte. 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income