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

100 as per the mandate of section 80A which provides that the deductions shall be allowed from the gross total income and the aggregate amount of all the deductions shall not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee. If however the amount of eligible relief under section 80-IB is say Rs. 90, then full amount

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

house property, which were pledged with bank for obtaining loan by the company. These properties were sold by bank arid the sale proceeds were appropriated by bank to square off the loans of the company. The net consideration in this case is the sale amount collected by bank. Thus the net consideration on the sale of the original assets stands

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only on the issue of certificate of completion of the project is applicable to the A.Y. i.e. 2017-18, following the doctrine of fairness.” 15. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15.1 Ground Nos.2

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only on the issue of certificate of completion of the project is applicable to the A.Y. i.e. 2017-18, following the doctrine of fairness.” 15. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15.1 Ground Nos.2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

house' indicates the nature of property to be acquired and not a number of properties. The appellant also placed reliance on the decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao [365 ITR 249](2013) wherein it was held that the elements of the factual position and the year in which agreement was entered into were relevant

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' offered by the Appellant. :- 6 -: K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thereafter, the Ld AO., after discussing and verifying the eligibility of the deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act allowed a deduction under that section to the extent of Rs 13,67,23,850. The matter pertaining to head of taxation

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

100% on its profit is allowable on a year to year basis as profit has been shown on partial completion of the project every year. But the appellant has overlooked clause (b) of the said Instruction which has clearly stated that if it was found that the project was not completed within the specified time limit, then the deduction granted

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

100% on its profit is allowable on a year to year basis as profit has been shown on partial completion of the project every year. But the appellant has overlooked clause (b) of the said Instruction which has clearly stated that if it was found that the project was not completed within the specified time limit, then the deduction granted

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

100% on its profit is allowable on a year to year basis as profit has been shown on partial completion of the project every year. But the appellant has overlooked clause (b) of the said Instruction which has clearly stated that if it was found that the project was not completed within the specified time limit, then the deduction granted

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

property of assessee was also taken as sale value and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act [Act]. Ld.CIT(A) admits (vide para 15) the additional grounds and additional information which was forwarded to AO by his predecessor but on reason of objection by AO (after two remand reports) rejected the additional grounds and evidence

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

house property’, the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income’, for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

100 M to 260 M with a bridge at T.B.L. • Construction of right side N.O.F. Dam from 260 M to 1500 M. • Formation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m. (approximate). • Construction of Infall regulator. • Construction of off take regulator. • Excavation of leading channel. • Formation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles. • Excavation of connecting channel. • Excavation of surplus course. • Construction

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

100 M to 260 M with a bridge at T.B.L. • Construction of right side N.O.F. Dam from 260 M to 1500 M. • Formation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m. (approximate). • Construction of Infall regulator. • Construction of off take regulator. • Excavation of leading channel. • Formation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles. • Excavation of connecting channel. • Excavation of surplus course. • Construction

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

100 M to 260 M with a bridge at T.B.L. • Construction of right side N.O.F. Dam from 260 M to 1500 М. • Formation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m. (approximate). • Construction of Infall regulator. • Construction of off take regulator. • Excavation of leading channel. • Formation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles. • Excavation of connecting channel. • Excavation of surplus course. • Construction

ARUNA KOMMURI,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property. On appeal, the Ld.CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his view. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. Revenue Authorities on the earlier instances which are extracted herein above and argued that invoking the provisions of section 50C in the hands of the assessee

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

100% export-oriented unit and entitled to claim exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act and therefore no loss is being carried forward. Along with the original return filed on 31.10.2001, the assessee also annexed a note to the computation of income clearly stating as above. However, thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income under Section

SURENDRA BABU GUDAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Surendra Babu Gudapati, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. International Taxation – 1, Hyderabad Pan – Ahxpg 7295D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj Kumar Daga Revenue By: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019 O R D E R

house property to the tune of Rs. 11,17,600/- for A.Y. 2014-15 whereas for the AY. 2013-14, the assessee has offered Rs.22,52,216/-. On verification, AO noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee has not offered rental income from the property at H.No. 1-98/A/K/2, Kruthika Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 3.2 During the course

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

100 X 785) = Rs. 51,34, 803 = Rs. 23,65,197 Less deduction U/s. 54 = Rs. 23,65,197 LTCG = NIL______ (Investment in House Property U/s. 54 of the Act Rs. 1,03,36,000) 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO after examining the case of the assessee computed the LTCG of the assessee by adopting the assessee’s share