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

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

10,08,215/- against the income from other heads of (+) Rs. 18,66,98,748/-, consisting of “Income from house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter

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

10,08,215/- against the income from other heads of (+) Rs. 18,66,98,748/-, consisting of “Income from house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter

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

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

34 (Delhi) Facts • The assessee sold his joint property which gave rise to proportionate capital gains. He claimed deduction under section 54F by investing sale proceeds in acquisition of vacant plot and purchase of a residential house in the name of his wife. • Taking a view that under section 54F, investment in residential house should be in the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

10. I have perused the submissions of appellant, the information brought on record and the contention of the A.O. Considering the facts of the case in entirety, it appears that the A.O was erroneous in applying the section 28(iv) of the IT Act while making the addition on account of 'value of benefit arising from the receipt of land

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(5) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and whether the assessee will be entitled to depreciation allowances and development rebate with reference to such interest also. The court held that the accepted accountancy rule for determining cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them in working

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(5) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and whether the assessee will be entitled to depreciation allowances and development rebate with reference to such interest also. The court held that the accepted accountancy rule for determining cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them in working

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

10(5) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and whether the assessee will be entitled to depreciation allowances and development rebate with reference to such interest also. The court held that the accepted accountancy rule for determining cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them in working

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Giridhari Constructions, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagfg 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Giridhari Constructions, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 14(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagfg 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 24/09/2015 For Ay 2011-12

property and verify the eligibility of the housing project for claim of deduction u/ s 80AB(10) of the Act. The report had substantiated the fact that 7 buildings (Blocks) out of 10 buildings (Blocks) are complete and 322 flats out of 518 flats are completed. The AO based on the valuation report of DVO of the department disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

34,000/- (Schedule A Property) along with Residential villa / house (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement of sale, the purchaser has paid an amount of Rs3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores and five lakhs only) towards earnest /advance sale consideration in favour

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

house property and deduction u/s 80lA (4) is not allowable in respect of such income. c. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AD. vide order dated 12 September 2014. He further held that the appellant has failed to comply with the directions of the CSOT notification to locate 30 units in the industrial park. He also directed

BBR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

House Property. 6. On this aspect, since verification is necessary, we deem it just and proper to direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify the Memorandum/Articles of Association/relevant part of the audited annual accounts as to the clarification on the aspect of the business/profession of the assessee and if it is construction and letting out of the property then

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards