BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

loss. Therefore, merely for the reasons that there is a sudden jump in share price, it cannot be alleged that the assessee is also a part of that group of people who are involved in providing bogus entries for deriving Long-Term Capital Gain. In the present case, the Assessing Officer neither brought out any material which suggests the role

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

loss as well as a chance of gain. " [Emphasis supplied] 14 The department submits that the revenue-sharing model of Joint Development being followed by the assessee is a composite arrangement wherein land is contributed by one party and the development being carried out by the other party with a clear understanding on sharing of the proceeds from sale

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

set off of Short-Term Capital Loss against the Short-Term Capital Gain. Further, the learned CIT (A) has brought

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

loss. Therefore, merely for the reasons that there is a sudden jump in share price, it cannot be alleged that the assessee is also a part of that group of people who are involved in providing bogus entries for deriving Long-Term Capital Gain. In the present case, the Assessing Officer neither brought out any material which suggests the role

SRINIVAS SHAH RADRARAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

loss. Therefore, merely for the reasons that there is a sudden jump in share price, it cannot be alleged that the assessee is also a part of that group of people who are involved in providing bogus entries for deriving Long-Term Capital Gain. In the present case, the Assessing Officer neither brought out any material which suggests the role

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

loss. Learned Assessing Officer was conscious of the facts of SEBI conducting enquiries and identifying some of the issues of the manipulations of share market with the inputs given by their own surveillance system and also by the Income Tax Department. In the light of this knowledge in the public domain, the learned Assessing Officer entertained a reasonable doubt

PONNAPULA SULOCHANA, L/R OF LATE PONNAPULA SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

gain of Rs. 1,02,734/- after claiming the set-off of brought forward short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,47,754/-. The A.O. denied

PONAPULA SULOCHANA LR LATE P SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

gain of Rs. 1,02,734/- after claiming the set-off of brought forward short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,47,754/-. The A.O. denied

SHRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

gain of Rs. 1,02,734/- after claiming the set-off of brought forward short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,47,754/-. The A.O. denied

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

set off the balance capital gains of rs.21,94,150/- with capital loss of A.Y. 2012 - 13 & 2013- 14. Hence

AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

loss under the Income Tax Act. After considering the reply of the assessee, the learned Pr. CIT observed that the assessee is taking contrary stands in respect of the capital gain arising from the sale of mutual fund as well as re- valuation of the mutual fund and, therefore, these aspects are very much required to be verified with reference

ASHA NIMMAGADDA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

loss of Rs. 28,52,66,503/- and set-off of the same with the long-term capital gains of Rs. 24,77,06,773/- claimed

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

gains of Rs.54,32,56,728/- after setting off the short-term capital loss of Rs.53,70,98,641/-. The learned

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

gains of Rs.54,32,56,728/- after setting off the short-term capital loss of Rs.53,70,98,641/-. The learned

RAJASEKHAR NAIDU GALLA,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

loss. Therefore, on this point, there is no need of revision of assessment under Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, by taking note of the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the A.O. has not carried out verification with regard to the income declared by the assessee under the head Capital Gains, has set

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

gains as ‘un-accounted income’; and it is for the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies and that rise of price of shares within a short period of time was genuine, genuineness could not be established merely on basis of documents like bank details, purchase/sale documents and detail of demat account. Hon’ble Court further held that in absence

DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GOCL CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Gocl Corporation Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(2) Pan:Aabcg8433B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Y Ratnakar Revenue By: Smt.Th Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.11.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2009-10. 2. There Is A Delay Of 74 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing Both Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

setting off of brought forward business loss and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.22,89,67,996/-. Subsequently, the assessee

UNITED STEEL ALLIED INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Gain on sale of Immovable property of Rs.4,16,72,303/-, the net Long Term Capital Loss was Rs.28,67,52,894/-.” 4 ITA.No.908/Hyd./2025 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee company has preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee company has challenged penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for under-reporting