INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2) Where the assessee purchases, within the period of [two\nyears] after the date of the transfer of the original asset, or\nconstructs, within the period of three years after such date,\nany residential house, the income from which is chargeable\nunder the head \"Income from house property\", other than\nthe new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

house, as an information centre for the members of the association and provide co-operative services in their common benefits". According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee being a National Association of Software Service Companies, it was natural for it to provide such services to its members. He noted that the services also included the following: - • "It provides information

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)

house property within the specified date as per the provisions of Section 54F of the Act, in the light of the Circulars issued by the CBDT from time to time in view of TOLA, 2020, in our considered view, the A.O. ought not to have disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

11,20,759/-. 25. As discussed in the above paragraphs when an assessee forfeits exemption consequent to violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) the amount of income forfeited exemption suffers tax at maximum marginal rate and the other income suffers tax at normal rate. In the instant case it has to be seen as to under which head

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

Bench: Us:

11. Ostensibly, the AO while framing the assessment had declined the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Act, for the reason that the sale consideration of Rs. 70 lacs (out of Rs. 72.54 lacs) of the old residential house that was deposited in the assessee’s bank account was neither utilized/used by him for purchase

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project on the said lands. 56. The above facts have been confirmed by both the parties and the same are not disputed and are part of the assessment records. 57. In view of the above the Assessee submits that the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(i) or (ii) or (vi) as the case

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

11 of the Income Tax (Appellate\nTribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in\nadditional ground are legal in nature for which relevant facts are\nstated to be emanating from the existing records.\n6.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee had\nfiled an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order

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

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

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, 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAJA BABU NIMMATURI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

11 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others Municipality held that the impugned land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and cannot be treated as capital asset. The relevant findings of the learned CIT (A) in order dated 30.09.22 is reproduced as under: “If the land is situated outside 2 kms of the local

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

11 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others Municipality held that the impugned land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and cannot be treated as capital asset. The relevant findings of the learned CIT (A) in order dated 30.09.22 is reproduced as under: “If the land is situated outside 2 kms of the local