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 I T Act. During the relevant period the assessee was not the owner of the residential property although he had full control over the property. Before the AO, the appellant has stated that his father is free to gift this property to any other person. Thus, I find that that the assessee has hypothetically attempted

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

Section. 54F clearly restricts the exemption to sale proceedings of one asset for investment in one residential house. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in allowing the exemption claimed u/s.54F without considering and appreciating the fact that when the nature of two properties are found to be in concrete structure

NEETA GOSWAMI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house property under the court order at Rs. 2.45 crores and claimed deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) to the tune of Rs. 2.11 crores while offering Rs. 34 lakhs as long term capital gains. Learned Assessing Officer, however, recorded that there was no evidence supporting the claim 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

142 1[or section 148] or section 153A [***] relating to the assessment year commencing [on the 1st day of April, 1a[2023]] shall,— [(a) in the case of a person being 2[an individual who is a resident other than not ordinarily resident and] where the total income includes income chargeable to income-tax, under the head,— (i) "Salaries

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

142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers", near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

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

142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers", near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

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

142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers", near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

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

houses were the subject matter of the assessment order or not. To this, he was not able to point out from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of section 54F on account of the assessee having two residential properties. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that ground no.2 which deals with

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

142; [1960] 3 SCR 953 (SC). other words, loss is negative profit. Both positive and negative profits are of a revenue character. Both must enter into computation, wherever it becomes material, in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee. Although section 6 classifies income under six heads, the main charging provision is section 3 which levies income

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

Section 192) WIPRO LIMITED 12 Amount paid or credited 904142 TDS-192 2. The assesse has filed return of income declaring income from salary (Gross salary Rs.9,04,142). Further, the assesse has declared loss from house property

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

property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 139 cannot mean only section 139(1) but is means all sub-sections of section 139. Under sub-section (4) of section 139 any person who has not furnished a return within the time

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next to PG College. Secunderabad-500 026. PAN : AANFV0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the order passed

(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM, REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the return of income filed by the assessee and argued that the assessee derived income from house property

(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the return of income filed by the assessee and argued that the assessee derived income from house property

(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of the return of income filed by the assessee and argued that the assessee derived income from house property

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

properties industries (P) Ltd -382 ITR 547 (Del) (iv) AV TEe Ltd -395 ITR 434 (Del) 7.5 The earned PClT, Central has mechanically and without application of mind has approved the proposal of AO to reopen the assessment. The reasons recorded, as furnished to the Appellant, are incomplete and defective because in Annexure 1 to his proposal

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name “Manjeera Diamond Towers”, near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name “Manjeera Diamond Towers”, near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District