ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Capital Gains. (9) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has erred in not giving the indexation benefits provided for sale of immoveable property u/s 48 of the Income tax Act, 1961. (10) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has charged interest under section 234B and 234C despite the TDS

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.

capital gains and credit for TDS and quantification for carry forward unabsorbed depreciation are concerned, the same was restored back

KAMALUDDIN HAMED SALMANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 9(1), HYDERABAD

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

TDS shall 3 Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani be deducted @ 1% on Rs.1,63,25,000/- which worked out to Rs.1,63,250/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that, the differential amount Rs.75,250/- (Rs.1,63,250/- - Rs.88,000/-) needs to be brought to tax. 2.1. The Assessing Officer noted that, the assessee has sold a land vide sale deed No.8230 dated

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PRAGNAPUR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 12 are partly allowed

Bench: Us:

capital gains. In response, the assessee company produced copies of an original work contract dated 26.05.2021 with M/s Gajwel Developers (initially climed to be a proprietorship concern) and a revised contract dated 28.02.2022 with Gajwel Developers Pvt. Ltd., along with bank statements showing payments to the contractor, ledger extracts and TDS

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS has been deducted u/s.195 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, in absence of proper explanation offered by the assessee with supporting documentary evidences such as bank statements etc., the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee for assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act originally under old procedure

RAJ KUMAR APPALA ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2011-12

Capital Gains : Rs. 12,68,000/- iv) Undisclosed TDS receipts : Rs. 15,07,906/- 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

Capital Gains.” Also, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O., while bringing the interest income of Rs.2,77,409/- received by the assessee on its deposits with Canara Bank to tax, had grossly erred in not allowing the credit of the corresponding tax deduction at source (TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

capital gains / short term\ncapital gains has been offered to tax by Dalmia Bharat\nEnterprises Ltd. The shares were never held by the assessee at\nany point of time, nor the assessee is having any position in\nthe said company. Although the Assessing Officer alleged that\nthe shares of Bharati Cement Corporation Ltd. were held in the\nname of Dalmia

GNANASEKARAN MANIKANDAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

capital gain and income from other sources as well as interest income and rental income. The assessee was never served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed the affidavit

GNANASEKARAN MANIKANDAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

capital gain and income from other sources as well as interest income and rental income. The assessee was never served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed the affidavit

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

capital gain and income from other sources as well as interest income and rental income. The assessee was never served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed the affidavit

LADE MADWESH,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(2), KADAPA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lade Madwesh Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadapa Ward-2 Pan:Aabhl5201M Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

TDS form 26AS, therefore, the Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer should have rectified the mistake u/s 154 of the Act. 12.1 However, the case in hand is not the case of the apparent mistake. In the present case, the assessee initially has computed the capital gain

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 :

gain will arise nor any deeming charge u/s. 56 of the receipt of property / assets / shares etc., can be attributed for improper consideration. The appellant presents a scheme to the High Court along with the valuation and the method in which the same is done and once the same is approved, the amalgamation order is passed accordingly, the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

capital gain disallowing cost of acquisition as well as deduction towards 54F and Rs.1,85,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and thus assessed the total income at Rs.4,89,28,400/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) who passed order in favour of the assessee

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERAABAD vs. DEENABABU KONDUBHATLA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

TDS relating to Section 195. 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold two immovable properties, on which Long Term Capital Gain

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

gains before filing the return of income. However, the\nAssessing Officer finalized the penalty order and it came to the\nnotice of the assessee on the last day of hearing of penalty\nproceedings on 25.9.2014 that the AD is going to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in these assessment years. Hence, the\nassessee filed appeals against

SRI VENKATESWARA COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Venkateswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative House Ward 14(2) Building Society Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeas7809L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: N O N E Revenue By: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 3.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On 6.11.2023 For Which Notice Was Duly Served On The Assessee Through Rpad & The Acknowledgment Is Placed On Record. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Nor Any Page 1 Of 6

TDS during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y 2012-13. He further noticed that the assessee sold the property at MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards for Rs.7,50,000/-. However, the value adopted by the SRO for charging stamp duty was Rs.60,00,000/-. According to the Assessing Officer although the assessee

BALAJI DEVELOPERS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2016-17 Balaji Developers Vs. Acit Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aamfb2401J Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, Ca Revenue By: Dr.K Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “Ground No. 1: The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad, Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. Ground No. 2: The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Has Not Conducted A Proper Examination Of The Receipts Pertaining To The Sale Of Various Flats, Where The Receipts Are Less Than The Amount Reflected In Form 26As. Ground No. 3: The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad Failed To Appreciate The Reasons For The Alleged Difference Between Income Reported By The Appellant & Amount Reflected In Form 26Aj In Respect Of Various Flats.

Capital Gains. Wherever the cost of flat. sold is more than the Rs.50 lakhs, customers are deducting 1% TDS and depositing