ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy 3. The A.O., after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the date of filing of return for the assessment year under consideration, computed long-term capital gain derived from sale of property of Rs. 8,56,93,408/- and disallowed

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

54F, being an\nanalogous section, calls for a more liberal interpretation and\napplication, as the intent of the section was to encourage\ninvestment in residential house by an individual or a Hindu\nUndivided Family out of the sale proceeds earned. Also, we find that\na similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case\nof Pradeep Kumar

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 54F in as much as the net consideration on sale of original asset has not been appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset and therefore, he completed the assessment by disallowing

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

disallowed by the AO, but has made an alternative claim before the ld.CIT(A) under Section 54F of the Act against

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing exemption u/s 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,63,67,705/- by stating that the assessee has used a colourable device to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961." It is mentioned in the order of the CIT (A) that "The real intent of the gift transaction

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the land was registered in the name of the assessee’s son. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the premise that the sale proceeds of the agricultural land were used to purchase another piece of agricultural land. On appeal, Held, dismissing

RADHIKA KURRA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Radhika Kurra, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), Pan – Aedpk 3506Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

disallowed the exemption claimed by the Appellant under section 54F of the Act on the alleged contention that the Appellant

GUNDALA MAHENDER,,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

disallowance of the claim in respect of agricultural income. The Tribunal vide order dated 24/9/2014 upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the exemption under section 54B of the Act and also allowed the claim of agricultural income. In respect of the claim of exemption under section 54F

GUNDALA SARVOTTAM RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

disallowance of the claim in respect of agricultural income. The Tribunal vide order dated 24/9/2014 upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the exemption under section 54B of the Act and also allowed the claim of agricultural income. In respect of the claim of exemption under section 54F

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

54F of the Act was not raised by the assessee in his original return of income or the revised return, but it can still be raised, as the relevant material was available on record before the appellate authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Ld. AR in support of his contention, has relied upon the order

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT, ( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of claim of section 54F of the Act already granted by learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. 5. Aggrieved

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F insofar the same pertained to the short-term capital gains

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. IQBAL ALI KHAN , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505 /Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asstt. Cit Vs. Shri Iqbal Ali Khan, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpi8951P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

section 54F? 2. Whether the learned CIT (A) erred in permitting a proportionate disallowance u/s 54F which is not provided

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB] or Chapter VI-A exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner

BALARAJ GUTTAMIDI ,MANIKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/O. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. Pan : Btlpg4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2022

Section 54F infructuous as the .same provides for the taxability of the new asset in the hands of the person claiming such deduction, if transferred before the expiry of the provided periods Thus, the interpretation to apply for asset in the name of son!! as eligible for deduction u/s 54F would not be proper.. In view of the discussions

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act submitted that, although the assessee is having multiple properties, but except one house, remaining properties are commercial properties and are let out for commercial purposes. All details were furnished to the CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and sustained the additions made by the Assessing

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

disallowing the deduction of Rs 1,73,90,944 claimed under section 54F of the Act is unsustainable both on facts

SURENDRA BABU SABBINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

section 54F of the I.T. Act. He therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F at Rs. 9,54,10,035/- and determined