KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

56,25,110 2002-03 7,82,83,064 1,50,00,000 9,32,83,064 2003-04 12,39,36,890 2,40,00,000 14,79,36,890 2004-05 19,23,75,770 2,00,00,000 21,23,75,770 2005-06 1,80,00,000 24,79,35,457 The assessments were completed

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

56,25,110 2002-03 7,82,83,064 1,50,00,000 9,32,83,064 2003-04 12,39,36,890 2,40,00,000 14,79,36,890 2004-05 19,23,75,770 2,00,00,000 21,23,75,770 2005-06 1,80,00,000 24,79,35,457 The assessments were completed

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

56,25,110 2002-03 7,82,83,064 1,50,00,000 9,32,83,064 2003-04 12,39,36,890 2,40,00,000 14,79,36,890 2004-05 19,23,75,770 2,00,00,000 21,23,75,770 2005-06 1,80,00,000 24,79,35,457 The assessments were completed

BALLELA SAI SREE,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

2,25,00,000/- to be paid in various instalments. The cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was paid on 02.04.2016 and was encashed before the signing of this document. The specifications mentioned in the document are already reproduced in the pages of the order wherein the general specifications for the villa have been mentioned

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

2,25,00,000/- to be paid in various instalments. The cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was paid on 02.04.2016 and was encashed before the signing of this document. The specifications mentioned in the document are already reproduced in the pages of the order wherein the general specifications for the villa have been mentioned

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

2,25,00,000/- to be paid in various instalments. The cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was paid on 02.04.2016 and was encashed before the signing of this document. The specifications mentioned in the document are already reproduced in the pages of the order wherein the general specifications for the villa have been mentioned

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

2,25,00,000/- to be paid in various instalments. The cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was paid on 02.04.2016 and was encashed before the signing of this document. The specifications mentioned in the document are already reproduced in the pages of the order wherein the general specifications for the villa have been mentioned

GUDURI VENKATA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

2,25,00,000/- to be paid in various instalments. The cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was paid on 02.04.2016 and was encashed before the signing of this document. The specifications mentioned in the document are already reproduced in the pages of the order wherein the general specifications for the villa have been mentioned

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

2,25,00,000/- to be paid in various instalments. The cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was paid on 02.04.2016 and was encashed before the signing of this document. The specifications mentioned in the document are already reproduced in the pages of the order wherein the general specifications for the villa have been mentioned