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 the entire amount of investment claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 7,33,96,000/- on the ground that, the assessee has 9 Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy not invested the unutilized portion of capital gain amount in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme as required under Section 54F(4

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

4) of 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

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

4 plots at\nBhongir District, therefore, it was, inter alia, on the said count also,\ndisentitled from raising the claim of deduction under Section 54F of\nthe Act.\n11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before\nthe CIT(A) (second round of litigation)\n12. The CIT(A), after necessary deliberations, concluded that\nperusal of the documents that were

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

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

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

54F of the Act. 4. Further case of the assessee is that for the assessment year 2014- 15, the assessee filed his return of income on 24/08/2015, admitting the total income at Rs. 1,01,00,000/-. Subsequently, on 29/03/2021, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for the assessment year 2014-15 and the assessee filed

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

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

4 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn-1), Hyd Assessee's share in the market value of the property (Development Agreement cum GPA Doc No. 58/2012 dated 05-01-2012) Rs. 26,61,120/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition As discussed in para 11 above. Rs. 3,84,000/- Indexed cost of improvement Rs. NIL Assessee's share

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

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

4),\nHyderabad.\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nORDER\nShri K.C. Devdas, C.A.\nDr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R\n24.04.2025\n02.06.2025\nप्रति रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.\nThe present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the\norder passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),\nHyderabad – 10, dated 24.10.2019, which in turn arises from the\norder passed

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.

4 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO as the AO while framing assessment had lost sight of the aforesaid material fact and had wrongly accepted the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act regarding the STCG on transfer of 517.87 sq yds of land, thus, the same had rendered his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

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

4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in assuming that just because the assessee could not get sanction from the Municipal Authorities, for the construction of the house property, the construction period from September 2012 to July 2013 is doubtful and assessee is not eligible for the deduction u/s 54F. 5. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim u/s 54F, only

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

Bench: Us:

4. Thereafter, the assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2018, wherein the assessee’s claim for exemption raised under Section 54 of the Act on sale of a residential property for Rs.72.54 lacs based on investment made by him in a new residential property was declined. 5. Aggrieved

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.:

4 of 10 ITA No 1472 of 2025 Nitin Bhatia new residential property within two years from the date of transfer of the original residential house, the substantive condition under section 54(1) of the Act stood fully complied with and that the denial of deduction of Rs. 22,51,617/- was solely on account of non-deposit

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

disallowing an amount of Rs.241,50,975/-, as excess exemption claimed by the Appellant under section 54F of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4

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 :

section and issue of notice u/s 148 is valid in law. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that all the information/ particulars/details were already furnished by the Appellant at the time of assessment proceedings itself and in the absence of any fresh/ new information, reopening of the assessment by mere changing the opinion is bad in law. 4

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 and in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant had Invested out of the sale proceeds of land at Manchirevula and invested u/s. 54-F Rs.1,60,60,600/- In Land at Gopanpally Village

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 the taxable income at Rs.31,92,00,995/- and agricultural income of Rs.6,53,800/-. 6. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee reiterated the same arguments as made before the Assessing Officer

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

54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and cost of acquisition u/s 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of additional evidence without calling for remand report under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and conducting enquiry under section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2.1. The appeal filed by the Revenue