DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

house property’ and has claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act. He also observed that apart

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property in its return of income and also claimed deduction u/s 24(a) and, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19/09/2017

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property in its return of income and also claimed deduction u/s 24(a) and, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19/09/2017

GARIKAPATI RAGHURAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

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

house property and for allowing deduction from income from house property to the extent is permitted under the other provisions

HIMA BINDU PUTTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

house property’ and eligible deductions there from should be allowed under section 24 of the Act. In the alternative, ld.counsel

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Deduction u/s 80IA Nil Business income (-)8,50,55,252 B. Income from house property 15,49,369 C. Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Deduction u/s 80IA Nil Business income (-)8,50,55,252 B. Income from house property 15,49,369 C. Income

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

deduction u/s 54F of Rs.9,54,10,035/- had offered the net taxable gain at Rs.10,57,52,441/-. From the various details furnished by the assessee, he noted that the assessee has the following property other than the new asset: 1. Flat at Sai Nivas, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad 2. House

AVNISH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

deduction of Rs.4,05,72,447/-. The Assessing Officer without appreciating the relevant facts, simply disallowed the claim of the assessee stating that purchased house property

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

Bench: Us:

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

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

property just before the sale and seek exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961, alleging he does not own more than one house at the time of claiming the deduction

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

deduction u/s 80IB(10). 26. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) was considering the case of an assessee, who received approval of the local authority in respect of a composite housing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

deduction u/s 80IB(10). 26. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) was considering the case of an assessee, who received approval of the local authority in respect of a composite housing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

deduction u/s 80IB(10). 26. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) was considering the case of an assessee, who received approval of the local authority in respect of a composite housing

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

properties sold where plots only. Further, when assessee himself stated that the plots purchased are under dispute, it is not clear how she constructed a house before clearance of this litigation. Considering the above facts, it is clear the assessee sold a vacant plot only and not residential house and hence the assessee is not eligible for deduction

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

deducting indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,90,010/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 76,83,990/- for purchase of another residential house property

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

House Property” as against taxed by the AO under the head “Income from Other Sources” and deduction u/s 24 of the Act should

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

deduction whereas the wordings of Section. 54F clearly restricts the exemption to sale proceedings of one asset for investment in one residential house. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in allowing the exemption claimed u/s.54F without considering and appreciating the fact that when the nature of two properties