INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowed exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act only on technical ground of not satisfying the conditions of proviso to section 54F(1

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)

disallowed deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 7,33,96,000/- on the ground that, the assessee has failed to invest unutilized amount of capital gain derived from sale of property in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme on or before filing of return of income under Section 139(1

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

disallowed the claim on the short ground that the benefit is not available to the appellant as the notification specifying Ranga Reddy District as backward area was published on 20.07.2016 and therefore the Appellant Company is not eligible to the deduction as the addition and installation of the machinery were made prior to the said date. Aggrieved with the action

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

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

disallowed the balance Page 6 of 10 ITA No 1472 of 2025 Nitin Bhatia deduction of Rs.22,51,617/- on the ground that the assessee had not deposited the said amount in the CGAS as contemplated under section 54(2) of the Act. Therefore, the solitary issue for our consideration is whether the balance amount of Rs.22,51,617/-, which

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

disallowed the claim u/s 54F with an assumption that the assessee has not utilized the same amount which he has received on account of sale of assets, because the amounts received on sale of assets were appropriated by Bank towards the loans of the company. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the provisions of section 54 and 54F

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 long-term capital gains derived from transfer of land pursuant to JDA dated 26-04-2012 and claimed that reinvestment made for purchase of a villa at Gopanpalli Village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad is eligible for deduction under Section 54F

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

section 54F is allowed to the extent of Rs. 4,99,27,937/- paid to the builder as purchase price of residential house. The disallowance of exemption to the extent of Rs. 2,41,50,975/- on account of unverifiable development cost is upheld. Consequently, the addition made by AO on this issue is confirmed. Accordingly grounds of appeal no.03

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 of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16,29,727/-. The AO while culminating the assessment, inter alia, initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s 271(1

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

1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee produced relevant record and information before the Assessing Authority and the Assessing Authority ultimately passed the impugned assessment order for the said Assessment Year 2015-16 u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 by disallowing exemption u/s 54F of Rs.2

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.:

1) CIT vs. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.) / [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad.): For the assessment year 1990-91 the Assessing Officer disallowed exemption U/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption of capital gains and deleted the addition. On appeal; Held, (i) that the assessee

ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUBRAHMANYAM KOTIKALAPUDI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Subrahmanyam Kotikalapudi, Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/ s 54EC of the I.T. Act be restored.” 5. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 6. Ld. AR relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Upendra C Parekh in ITA No. 3351/Mum/2017 vide ITA No. 04/09/2017 wherein the Bench has held as under

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 which was claimed under section 54F of the Act. 1.4 In this regard appellant would respectfully submit that, at the time of sale of the property, appellant was not in possession of more than one residential house as the villas handed over to appellant by Ambience Properties Limited are not in habitable condition and that they

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 /

54F to the tune of Rs. 85,20,500/- by restricting it to 50% of the claim. Ld. CIT(A) also allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 31,68,790/-. Insofar as the disallowance of agricultural income of Rs. 1

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 /

54F to the tune of Rs. 85,20,500/- by restricting it to 50% of the claim. Ld. CIT(A) also allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 31,68,790/-. Insofar as the disallowance of agricultural income of Rs. 1

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

1,32,01,339/- on account of short-term capital gains, and Rs. 6,77,04,992/- on account of long-term capital gains by way of disallowance of claim of 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

1 Acre vide Document No.1629/2008, dated 11/04/2008, for a consideration of Rs. 5,47,500/-. Thereafter, the assessee had, during the year under consideration, vide Document No.58/2012, dated 05/01/2012, entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) registered with SRO, Shankerpally, with M/s. SARK Projects for the development of the aforementioned land into “individual bungalows” with

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1,00,000/- housing loan sanctioned on 24/06/2015 towards purchase of property including an amount of Rs. 51,70,224/- out of his personal savings. Therefore, it was submitted that the appellant utilized the entire consideration of Rs. 72,54,000/- for the purchase of property and hence, was eligible for deduction U/s. 54F. In the assessment order