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

Bench: Us:

exemption u/s 54 of the Act, viz. (i). constructed a new residential property within a period of 3 years after the sale of his old residential property; or (ii). deposited in a “Capital Gains Account Scheme” (CGAS) the amount of capital gain that was not utilized for the purchase or construction of the new residential house

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

exemption u/s.54F has been wrongly denied, since the properties in question i.e., three flats in Nos.010, 104 & 204 at 1-63/126/B, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad, and one property at Siliguri, are leased to a limited company, and further that merely showing the income from such properties under the head Income from House

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

house property and thereby fulfilled the conditions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to claim exemption. Hence

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

house property. As per the said provisions, capital gain derived from transfer of property is exempt in case the sale

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

exemption u/s 54 of the LT. Act. Further the contention that there are no photographs attached to sale deed in respect of properties purchased in year 2003 is not acceptable because both in the purchase deeds and sale deeds, it was clearly mentioned as an open plot only. The small open structure cannot be treated as a residential house

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

exemption of capital\ngains could not be refused to the assessee simply on the ground\nthat the construction of the new residential house had begun\nbefore the sale of the old residential property

CHALLA SATISH REDDY HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 46/Hyd/2020 ( िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 )

house property, other sources and long term capital gains. For the AY.2013-14, the assessee filed return of income on 26-03-2014 declaring an income of Rs.1,90,16,300/- after claiming exemption

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

exemption even if assessee had re-invested in more than one residential house. It nowhere prohibited the assessee to sell more than one residential house. In the instant case, the assessee has sold two residential properties

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

property, i.e., Flat No. 1102, consisting of 6666\nSq. ft in Survey No. 66/2 situated at Raidurg, Panmaktha Village,\nSerilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, vide Document No. 21093/\n2021, dated 07.12.2021, which was beyond the prescribed time\nlimit of two years within which she was statutorily required to invest\nin the new residential house to claim exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detract from the revenue character of the receipt. The question of adjustment of interest payable by the company against the interest earned by it will depend upon the provisions of the Act. The expenditure would have been deductible as incurred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detract from the revenue character of the receipt. The question of adjustment of interest payable by the company against the interest earned by it will depend upon the provisions of the Act. The expenditure would have been deductible as incurred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detract from the revenue character of the receipt. The question of adjustment of interest payable by the company against the interest earned by it will depend upon the provisions of the Act. The expenditure would have been deductible as incurred

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

House Property, respectively. 7.1 In this regard, it is important to note that this issue was under dispute in earlier AYs and my predecessor has already held the issue against the assessee, vide order in ITA No.324A/2011-12/CIT(A)- 6/2015-16 dated 30.09.2015 for the AY 2006-07 against the assessee. The relevant portion of the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDIRA VENGALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.Assessment Year – 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Late Indira Vengala, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Represented By Legal Heir Vengala Sanjeev Kumar, Hyderabad. Pan : Bbopv2537D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2024 Arising Out Of Ita No.587/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year – 2018-19 Late Indira Vengala, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward6(1), Hyderabad. Represented By Legal Heir Vengala Sanjeev Kumar, Hyderabad. Pan : Bbopv2537D (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pavan Kumar Gorti, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024

house property during the same financial year. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act, but Assessing Officer denied

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

exemption u/s.54F of the Act to the assessee if the\namount invested in CGAS is utilised by the assessee for the purpose\nof purchase / construction of residential house property

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

house property income and business loss. With regard to the claim of capital gains exemption, the Assessing Officer noted that

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house property, since there is no reference to any municipal assessment number or any electricity service connection number or any HMWSS connection number for the purpose of drinking and sewage supply mentioned in the registered document for the said residential property on the sale of which exemption

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

property, though not registered during the specified period would qualify for the benefit of reinvestment.-- 12.4 For availing exemption u/s 54F, the net consideration should be invested in specified asset before the date of filing return u/s 139. It was held in Nipun Mehrotra vs. ACIT(2008) 297 ITR (AT) 110 (Bang) that exemption u/s 54F will be available