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

Bench: Us:

property, viz residential house at Vijaya Nagar Colony, Mallepally, Hyderabad, Telangana would qualify for exemption under Section 54 of the Act.?; and (ii). that for availing the benefits under Section 54 of the Act, is it necessary that the sale proceeds of the old residential house must be used in the purchase or construction of the new residential house? 14

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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Section 2(14) of the Act.\n8.\nOn merits, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee after having\nsold the subject land vide sale deed dt.07.09.2007, had invested\nin a “new asset” i.e. a residential house, vide a registered sale deed\ndated 23.07.2011 an amount of Rs.90 lac. Apart from that, it was\nobserved by him that the assessee

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

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 Act, if he had more than one residential house in his name before investing. In the present case, the assessee has shown the house property income from two houses, namely, oneself occupied (at Door No.3-6-305/43,43/1, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad) and one let out (at Sy.No.52 & 53, Saheb Nagar, Khurd Village, LB Nagar, Hyderabad). However

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

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

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

property as mentioned therein and for that purposes, he has drawn our attention to section 54 of the Act. Further, the ld. DR had drawn our attention to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rajani Reddy Inturi Vs. ACIT, Circle – 14(1), Hyderabad (ITA No.4/Hyd/2019 dt.08.03.2021) wherein the Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the file

MANGAVALLI GRANDHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

property is situate· area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality as envisaged u/s.2(14)(a)(iii)(a) of the Act. 6.5.5 In this connection, it may be noted that the definition of Municipality includes Nagar Panchayat as defined in Article 243P(e) rw Article 243Q of the Constitution of Indio rw Explanatian (ii) to sub- section

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC