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

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, 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, 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

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

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

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

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

SATYA SAYEE BABU DIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1268/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2022-23) Satya Sayee Babu Divi, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Ayeps7457B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Satya Sayee Babu Divi, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25/06/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 22 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be treated as the owner of the property at Lodha, Kukatpally during the year under consideration. Consequently, the addition of Rs.3,62,880/- made under the head “Income from House Property” is unsustainable. Hence, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made

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

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

20,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the case\nwas referred to the Ld. DVO for the purpose of valuation of the\nproperty, who valued the fair market value at Rs.67,34,000/- and on\nthe basis of the valuation done by the DVO, the Ld. AO treated\nRs.67,34,000/- as the sale consideration of the land for the purpose

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

section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961, alleging he does not own more than one house at the time of claiming the deduction. He had strongly relied upon the lower authorities' order to support the case of the revenue. 10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record, including the judgments

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

10,000 72,44,008 -2,34,008 Co-operative Housing Society, Guttala Begumpet, Hyderabad, Plot No.65 3. Residential Plot at 2,51,30,000 38,18,304 2,13,11,696 Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal Total: 4,51,40,000 3,20,02,771 The assessee made an investment of Rs.3,36,00,000/- in the construction of residential

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

house property and does not have any brought forward loss 3[or loss to be carried forward] under the head; or (iii) xxxxx 4[(I) has assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; (IA) has signing authority in any account located outside India; (IB) has income from any source outside India; (IC) has income to be apportioned