ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11, when the joint development agreement was entered into. The subsequent receipt of property in the form of built up area in exchange of land was also held as ‘investment’ (fixed assets) and the assessee never treated built up area as inventory. The assessee never carried out any business activity. Therefore, the question

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11, when the joint development agreement was entered into. The subsequent receipt of property in the form of built up area in exchange of land was also held as ‘investment’ (fixed assets) and the assessee never treated built up area as inventory. The assessee never carried out any business activity. Therefore, the question

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11, when the joint development agreement was entered into. The subsequent receipt of property in the form of built up area in exchange of land was also held as ‘investment’ (fixed assets) and the assessee never treated built up area as inventory. The assessee never carried out any business activity. Therefore, the question

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11, when the joint development agreement was entered into. The subsequent receipt of property in the form of built up area in exchange of land was also held as ‘investment’ (fixed assets) and the assessee never treated built up area as inventory. The assessee never carried out any business activity. Therefore, the question

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11, when the joint development agreement was entered into. The subsequent receipt of property in the form of built up area in exchange of land was also held as ‘investment’ (fixed assets) and the assessee never treated built up area as inventory. The assessee never carried out any business activity. Therefore, the question

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11, when the joint development agreement was entered into. The subsequent receipt of property in the form of built up area in exchange of land was also held as ‘investment’ (fixed assets) and the assessee never treated built up area as inventory. The assessee never carried out any business activity. Therefore, the question

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

long term capital gains. Hence we confine ourselves with the said issue alone. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has dealt with this issue as under:- 9.5 Adventure in the nature of trade/capital gain? 9.5.1 The A.O. for treating the same as adventure in the nature of trade has sold as under: “The assessee has agreed to receiving

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

Long Term Capital Gains” (LTCG) or any part\nthereof during the subject year i.e AY 2022-23, then, as a fall out\nthereof, the offering of the LTCG on the subject property for tax on\nthe subsequent transfer of the new residential house

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)

long-term capital gain derived from sale of property after claiming indexed cost of acquisition, deduction under Section 54EC of Rs. 50,00,000/- for investment in REC Bonds and also claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act, for investing sale consideration received from sale of property for purchase/ construction of new residential 4 Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy house

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

long term capital gains, the assessee has claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.53,22,48,667/- being investment made for purchase of land for Rs.43,83,37,000/- and further deposited Rs.10,67,00,000/- under capital gain deposit account scheme and declared net capital gain of Rs.39.05 crores. 4. During the course

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

house property and towards income from short term and long term capital gains and the case was processed. Thereafter, information

ANU KOHLI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2016-17

long term capital gain and not short- term capital gain as held by the CIT (A). Page 4 of 6 ITA No 1477 of 2019 Anu Kohli Hyderabad. 4. With regard to the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act, we find that though the assessee has claimed the entire amount to have been invested in the property

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

long term capital gain after 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

SIVAPOTHULURU VEERAREDDY GADLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

House Property Rs. 10,92,938/- Capital Gains Rs. 21,59,554/- Income from Other Sources Rs. 21,710/- Gross Total Income Rs. 45,60,602/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 4.0. The long term

SIVA SHANKER REDDY GANDLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

House Property Rs. 10,92,938/- Capital Gains Rs. 21,59,554/- Income from Other Sources Rs. 21,710/- Gross Total Income Rs. 45,60,602/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 4.0. The long term

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.Sunder Singh

long term capital gains 1,31,90,199 3. While determining the capitals gains, the AO adopted the value of the property at Rs.125/-sq. yards as on 1.4.1981 as against Rs.900/- per sq. ft claimed by the assessee. Similarly, the AO considered the sale of consideration received as per the Joint development agreement at Rs.1

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.Sunder Singh

long term capital gains 1,31,90,199 3. While determining the capitals gains, the AO adopted the value of the property at Rs.125/-sq. yards as on 1.4.1981 as against Rs.900/- per sq. ft claimed by the assessee. Similarly, the AO considered the sale of consideration received as per the Joint development agreement at Rs.1

RAVI KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

house property. Thus, the Assessing Officer had computed the long- term capital gains of Rs.78,19,886/- and after deducting