SIVA SHANKER REDDY GANDLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

50C of the Act is applicable to the assessee's case. 5.3. Further the assessee has submitted that since the agricultural land that was sold by the assessee was not having a proper approach road and the land was surrounded by the lands of the neighbors from all the sides, the land was sold for a price less than

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

1. The order of the ld. CIT(A), Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal. :- 2 -: Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Hyderabad. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated. the fact that the provisions of section 50C of the Act would not apply in the appellant

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

disallowance u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act was called for in the case of the assessee company. 21. Apropos the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee company had entered into an “agreement”, dated 18.02.2010 for subscription of shares of the aforementioned company, viz. M/s. Kineta Metals and Minerals Limited (supra) which was before the insertion

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

1,03,36,000) 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO after examining the case of the assessee computed the LTCG of the assessee by adopting the assessee’s share of cost of construction at Rs. 6,89,557/-, invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act and disallowing

MAHMOOD HUSSAIN SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

1,24,51,960/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and determined the total income at Rs. 6,69,47,580/- by inter alia making addition towards disallowance of excess claim of interest against income from house property for Rs. 5,39,579/- and addition

RAMESH MUNAIAH CHINTAKUNTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

1,72,22,931/-. 3. Subsequently the learned PCIT on examination of the assessment record found that while computing the Long Term Capital Gains in respect of the vacant plot located at Nellore, the assessee treated only ₹ 9 lakhs as sale consideration and disclosing the long term capital loss of ₹ 6,92,774/- whereas, it was asserted that the full

UMA MAHESWARA RAO BODAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

1 of 12 ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara Rao Bodapati Page 2 of 12 ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara Rao Bodapati 3. There is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has explained the reasons for such Page 3 of 12 ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara

YADI REDDY SANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals) is erroneous and unsustainable On facts and in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the fact whether the notices has been served on the Appellant has decided without

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee was asked to furnish certain information. The relevant information was furnished by the assessee. After going through the same, the A.O. observed that the assessee had entered into a Development Agreement

ANANTH VASUDEV NAIK ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5) , HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Anant Vasudeo Naik, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(5), Pan : Abgpn5360D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2007-08 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 01.06.2018 In Appeal No.10034/17-18/B2 Cit(A)-6, Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Assessee’S Instant Appeal Suffers From 514 Days Of Delay In Filing. Learned Counsel Submitted That Assessee Is Old Aged Person & Not At All Conversed With E-Proceedings & Could Not Track The Messages, Which Caused The Impugned Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal. The Same Are Unrebutted From The Revenue’S Side During The Course Of Hearing. Case Law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 Air 1353 (Sc) & University Of Delhi Vs. Union Of India, Civl Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 Dt.17.12.2019, Hold That Such A Delay; Supported By Cogent Reasons, Deserves To Be Condoned So As To Make Way Of The Cause Of Substantial Justice. We Accordingly Hold That Assessee’S Impugned Delay Of 514 Days Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate. The Same Stands Condoned. Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits Therefore.

1)(c) penalty of Rs.8,96,330/-, we note with the able assistance of both the parties that the same has arisen on account of a long term capital gains addition to the tune of Rs.54,50,000/- made in assessment order dt.17.06.2014 invoking section 50C of the Act thereby determining the difference amount between actual sale price

C.M. RAJESH, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. (A.R.) Respondent By : Shri Balakrishna. (CIT-D.R.) Date of Hearing : 10.06.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These two assessees’ appeals for Asst. Year 2012-13 arise from the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad dt.24.01.2017

C.M. RAMESH, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. (A.R.) Respondent By : Shri Balakrishna. (CIT-D.R.) Date of Hearing : 10.06.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These two assessees’ appeals for Asst. Year 2012-13 arise from the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad dt.24.01.2017

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the assessment of addition under the head capital gains by re- computation without allowing

CHANDANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

50C on sale of an asset and thereafter allowed set off of business loss from the Short Term Capital Gain arising therefrom. Subsequently, he observed that the business loss was wrongly set off from short term capital gain even though the same was not allowable u/s 72 of the Act. Therefore, he issued notice

NALAMATI SEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Nalamati Sea Foods (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan: Aabcn1440K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri E.S. Ranganath, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M

disallowed and therefore, the assessee has concealed its particulars of income Page 3 of 5 ITA 546 of 2022 Nalamati Sea Foods P Ltd Hyderabad within the meaning of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. We find the assessee did not appear before the CIT (A)-NFAC for which the learned CIT (A)-NFAC has confirmed

BHARATHI MUKTEVI,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2016-17 Bharathi Muktevi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-12(1), Pan: Acipm 4867 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By Shri Djp Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2021 Order

section 50C. (7) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the specific ground that indexation benefit was not granted by the A.O. while computing the long term capital gains. (8) Any other ground that may be raised during the appellate proceedings with the prior permission from the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that