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 or for making a deposit in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme on or before the due date 13 Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy under Section

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

Bench: Us:

house before the “due date” of furnishing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) besides approving the AO’s view had further based on his aforesaid deliberation upheld the declining of the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Act. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find that

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:

section 22 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be treated as the owner of the property at Lodha, Kukatpally during the year under consideration. Consequently, the addition of Rs.3,62,880/- made under the head “Income from House Property” is unsustainable. Hence, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961, alleging he does not own more than one house at the time of claiming the deduction. He had strongly relied upon the lower authorities' order to support the case of the revenue. 10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record, including the judgments

SURENDRA BABU SABBINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

section 263 proceedings, the AO obtained details of properties owned by the assessee and noticed that out of seven properties, two properties are not residential but the remaining five properties namely the house at Sai Praveen Kuteer, Flat No.1,4 and 204 at Sai Lakshmi Nilayam, Sherilingampalli at Hyderabad and Swastik Apartment at Siliguri are residential units and therefore

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

13 following issues after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to the Assessing Officer. 1) Whether the assessee would be entitled to the claim of section 54F of the Act, if he had sold three properties and had acquired new property. Having regard to the section 54F, where the legislature has used “any” long term capital asset

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property of Rs.1,02,945/-, long term capital gain of Rs.3,60,837/- and income from other sources of Rs.25,155/- and agricultural income of Rs.90,000/-. The AO finalized the assessment proceedings and has calculated the long term capital gains at Rs.63,55,216 by disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 54 of the I.T.Act. 3. None

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 14A, expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall be disallowed and also referring to the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11/02/2014, the AO computed the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 13,51,57,665/- and added to the income returned by the assessee. He, accordingly, assessed the gross total income

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 14A, expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall be disallowed and also referring to the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11/02/2014, the AO computed the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 13,51,57,665/- and added to the income returned by the assessee. He, accordingly, assessed the gross total income

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

13,772/-. Apart from that, the A.O.\ndeclined the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the\nAct on two grounds, viz. (i) the assessee had not purchased the new\nresidential house within two years from the date of transfer of the\noriginal asset; and (ii) the assessee owned more than one residential\nhouse, i.e nine independent residential

HYDERABAD INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs.” 7.5 On perusal of above, we found that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case has held that, where the main object of the company is letting out, then

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

13,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank account as unexplained income even though the appellant has submitted a cash flow statement explaining the fact that the 3 Gowri Shankar Gupta aforesaid amount emanated from the cash in hand available with the appellant. 6. The NFAC erred in confining itself to the figure appearing under schedule

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

13. Thus, it is evident that in order to attract the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration

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

13. Thus, it is evident that in order to attract the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration

MARRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

13 but the cases. 23. Coming back to the appellant's case and the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of registration of the appellant society under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT (Central) cancelled registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act for occurrence

K M R EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

13 but the cases. 23. Coming back to the appellant's case and the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of registration of the appellant society under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT (Central) cancelled registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act for occurrence

K M R EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

13 but the cases. 23. Coming back to the appellant's case and the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of registration of the appellant society under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT (Central) cancelled registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act for occurrence

MARUTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

13 but the same may also cause prejudice/hardship to the persons in certain cases. 23. Coming back to the appellant's case and the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of registration of the appellant society under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT (Central) cancelled registration of the Society under Section