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

House Property 1,167,323 Short term Capital Gains 26,671,450 Income from other sources 157,480,998 Gross Total Income (190,392,200) Deduction computed u/s. 80-IA at NIL Rs. 589,89,757 but restricted to NIL on account of negative GTI 4. Ld. DR further in his submissions tried to distinguish the Hon’ble SC decision

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

House Property 1,167,323 Short term Capital Gains 26,671,450 Income from other sources 157,480,998 Gross Total Income (190,392,200) Deduction computed u/s. 80-IA at NIL Rs. 589,89,757 but restricted to NIL on account of negative GTI 4. Ld. DR further in his submissions tried to distinguish the Hon’ble SC decision

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act without any incriminating materials. The assessee further contended that as per section 153A of the Act, de-novo assessment can be made only in respect of assessment year for which the assessment proceedings has been abated and that in respect of assessment years for which the assessment had already been completed

INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act without any incriminating materials. The assessee further contended that as per section 153A of the Act, de-novo assessment can be made only in respect of assessment year for which the assessment proceedings has been abated and that in respect of assessment years for which the assessment had already been completed

BBR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

House Property. 6. On this aspect, since verification is necessary, we deem it just and proper to direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify the Memorandum/Articles of Association/relevant part of the audited annual accounts as to the clarification on the aspect of the business/profession of the assessee and if it is construction and letting out of the property then

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANNATAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Gonuguntla Nirmala Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Devi, Anantapur Circle 1 Pan:Aipbd2345Q Anantapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Venkata Ramana, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partner In M/S. Nithin Sai Construction. He Is Also A Director In M/S. Nithin Sai Agrotech (P) Ltd . The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.23,89,810/- Admitting Income From House Property, Business Income & From Other Sources. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) & Subsequently

house property”, the Page 2 of 7 ITA 413 of 2022 G Nirmala Devi Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.43,56,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the amount of Rs.86,200/- claimed as deduction towards interest on the ground that the interest pertains to loan taken for purchase of residential property

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property. Therefore, agricultural income offered by the assessee has to be accepted and cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Assessee gets relief accordingly in all the A.Ys before us. 7. In the result, disallowance of agricultural income and consequential additions for all the A.Ys in the hands of assessee before us, are deleted

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

deem it just and convenient to dispose of these appeals by ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 way of this common order, taking the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 as a lead case. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of earning income by way of interest from inter corporate loans

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

deem it just and convenient to dispose of these appeals by ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 way of this common order, taking the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 as a lead case. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of earning income by way of interest from inter corporate loans

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

deem it just and convenient to dispose of these appeals by ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 way of this common order, taking the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 as a lead case. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of earning income by way of interest from inter corporate loans

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shanta Sriram Constructions Vs The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4180M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Ramarao Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022

house property and on account of interest income. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Page 2 of 9 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is in now in appeal before us. 6. In respect to ground No.2, ld.AR