ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act Therefore, the court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes" as defined under Section

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

20 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of the following persons, namely:-- (i) the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such

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

20 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of the following persons, namely:-- (i) the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such

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

20 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of the following persons, namely:-- (i) the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such

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)

20% amounting to Rs. 1,92,95,618/- and claimed that, the above amount is not available with the assessee for depositing into Capital Gain Account Deposit Scheme and therefore, the same should be treated as invested for construction of house property or deposited in Capital Gain Account Deposit Scheme on or before the due date

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

Section 28 cannot be invoked and the income received cannot be treated as profits of business. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT [394 ITR 592] (SC), wherein it was held that – The assessee acquired leasehold rights in a property, constructed various shops and stalls

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 28 cannot be invoked and the income received cannot be treated as profits of business. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT [394 ITR 592] (SC), wherein it was held that – The assessee acquired leasehold rights in a property, constructed various shops and stalls

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

Bench: Us:

10, 1963, and that came to be completed within two years of the sale of the Golf Link house and that the capital gains to the extent of being invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house was not taxable under Section 54 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, took the view that the assessee had started

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified; Emphasis is on comparable uncontrolled transactions or a number of transactions - hence median price for other parties charged by power unit is CUP and the AO was right in applying the same. Para 6.5.7 of the TPO order ( page