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

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

reassessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s.147 of the Act dated 22-12-2019.\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the\nreassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is erroneous as no tangible\nmaterial was found which indicates that the assessee has escaped the\nincome.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

property in the FY 2019-20 for this I have taken Home loan from the bank worth of Rs.2500000 and I have claiming home loan interest and principal amount as deduction in my IT returns. I am working as a employee in private organisation since financial year 2017-18 and i have some savings so that i have planned

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 :

house, remaining properties are commercial properties and are let out for commercial purposes. All details were furnished to the CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel for the assessee further took our attention to paper book filed by the assessee and referred

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 was completed within three years from the date of transfer of asset and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F 5 ITA 167/Hyd/2024 Ravi Kumar of the Act, however, the Ld.CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts simply sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that to verify the facts with regard

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN INFRA ESTATES LLP, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN DWELLINGS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN INFRA ESTATES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. AARTHIK GREENTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

reassess total income, including any undisclosed income found as a result of search. Therefore, rejected the legal ground taken by the assessee. Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. 8. The Ld.CIT(A) had also deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards investment received from M/s Efficient Industrial Finance

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document :- 2 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document :- 2 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains

KUSHAL DAS DAYARAM MANGHANANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Kushal Das Dayaram Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Manghanani, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Agbpm9633N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. 20.03.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

house property and income from other sources. He filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,80,100/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 30.11.2016. The assessee, owning a commercial property, did not declare rental income

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 capital gain admitted by the assessee was offered on the sale of his share of property of land admeasuring Ac 4.14 Gts (which the assessee

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 capital gain admitted by the assessee was offered on the sale of his share of property of land admeasuring Ac 4.14 Gts (which the assessee

NEHA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1275/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Neha Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan:Asnpj2794B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rajnaj Agarwala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Neha Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.06.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property in favour of the assessee. We also observe that the document does not evidence transfer of any capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Act resulting in any capital gain in the hands of the assessee. It is also undisputed that the assessee is not the owner of the land. In the absence of ownership