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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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

section 11(2) and 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence of making any representation before CIT(E) with regard to accumulation of the funds, though it is claimed that it is being done, since the issue is not before me so it does not require any adjudication. However, I uphold

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)

10. Coming back to the remaining amount of Rs. 1,92,95,618/- claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act. The assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,92,95,618/- being 20.6% 12 Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy TDS deducted on total consideration received for sale of property as amount spent towards construction of house property

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

3, Hyderabad, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal considering the said Circular of CBDT directed the Assessing officer to allow exemption u/s 1 l of the I.T.Act. 8. In support of its, ld. AR filed the written submissions which are to the following effect : “The appellant is a Urban Development Authority entrusted with the development of urban areas

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

3, Hyderabad, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal considering the said Circular of CBDT directed the Assessing officer to allow exemption u/s 1 l of the I.T.Act. 8. In support of its, ld. AR filed the written submissions which are to the following effect : “The appellant is a Urban Development Authority entrusted with the development of urban areas

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

Bench: Us:

property on 31/10/2015, only a sum of Rs. 10,24,645/- is paid to be builder on 18/11/2015 and there are no further payments till the end of the financial year. As per section 54(1), the appellant should have within a period of 3 years after sale of house

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

10,\n1963, and that came to be completed within two years of the\nsale of the Golf Link house and that the capital gains to the\nextent of being invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar\nhouse was not taxable under Section 54 of the Act. The\nIncome-tax Officer, however, took the view that the assessee\nhad 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:

3 raised by the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.3,62,880/- made by the Ld. AO under the head “Income from House Property” in respect of the property at Lodha, Kukatpally. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had merely made payments towards a residential property at Lodha, Kukatpally. It was submitted that the said amount was reflected

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

10 or] section 10A or section 10B or section 10BA86[or section 54 or section 54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB] or Chapter VI-A exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return

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

Section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 29.09.2024, i.e., on the matter\nhaving been set aside by the Tribunal, after necessary deliberations\nand perusal of the documents, observed that except for one\nproperty, i.e., the property situated at Ghatkeswar, Uppal,\nMedipally, Hyderabad, the remaining eight properties (out of nine\nproperties) were found to be commercial properties. However, the\nA.O. observed

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

3) Mumbai on 17.03.2021\nin the case of Rubberwala group, which is engaged in the business of\nbuilding/construction. During the course of search a Scandisk pendrive was found\nwhich contained detailed data related to sale of shops in project Platinum Mall and also\ncash component/on-money received from various buyers of shops in the project.\nDuring the course of search, Shri