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

Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he submitted that the proportionate deduction is to be disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,82,87,569 made by the AO by treating the income from house property as income from business. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee company is not making any return or services on the portion/flats just let out, the income there

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

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

3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,82,87,569 made by the AO by treating the income from house property as income from business. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee company is not making any return or services on the portion/flats just let out, the income there

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 80-O, is of no help to the appellant.” 2.2 Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA from the income from house property as claimed. Thus, we dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee on this issue.” 3. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the above-mentioned decision and in accordance with “The Rule