KAPIL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,HANUMAKONDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12-2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 34. The second issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal is relating to the addition on account of finance cost of Rs.24

KAPIL FOOD AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12-2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 34. The second issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal is relating to the addition on account of finance cost of Rs.24

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 20/11/2019, determined the capital gains with respect to the aforesaid property transaction entered into by the assessee as per DAGPA vide Document No.58/2021, dated 05/01/2012, registered with SRO, Shankerpally, R.R. District at Rs. 22,77,120/-, as under: “Computation of Capital Gains: 4 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn

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

147), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that it does not make any difference as to whether the property has been shown as residential house on the record of the government authority but actual user thereof by the assessee will be considered while adjudicating upon the eligibility of the deduction u/s. 54F of the I.T.Act

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

147 of the Act without following due procedure prescribed by CBDT vide Instruction No F.No.299/ 10/2022- Dir(Inv.1)/647 dt., 22.08.2022 and accordingly the said proceedings and the consequent order ought to be declared null and void ab initio.\" 15. In view of the facts emanating from the record, we find that the assessee has duly raised this issue

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

house, remaining properties are commercial properties and are let out for commercial purposes. All details were furnished to the CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel for the assessee further took our attention to paper book filed by the assessee and referred

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

house property with claim of interest\npayable on borrowed capital of Rs.79,577. Hence, the above mentioned information suggests that\npurchase consideration of Rs.31,50,000 has escaped assessment.\n3.\nCOME TAX DEPARTM\nBased on the above, an opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b)\nof the Income Tax act, 1961 was provided to the assesse

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

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the\n assessment year 2018-19.\n4. The assessee was required to furnish reply on or before 17.03.2022. In response to\nnotice, the assessee electronically filed submission on 17.03.2022 and relevant portion of\nwhich is reproduced below:-\n\"It is submitted that the assessee in order to purchase the above-mentioned

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

147 of the Act without following due procedure prescribed by CBDT vide Instruction No F.No.299/ 10/2022- Dir(Inv.1)/647 dt., 22.08.2022 and accordingly the said proceedings and the consequent order ought to be declared null and void ab initio.” 15. In view of the facts emanating from the record, we find that the assessee has duly raised this issue

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property at Rs1,11,61,147/- and net income at Rs. 66,36,216/- as against the income shown at Rs.17,09,114/-. The AO has also added an amount of Rs. 54,54,000/- as unexplained investment under section

KAMISETTY ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

House Property', thereby\nerroneously denying the statutory standard deduction permissible under the Act. The Learned AO\nmischaracterized the nature of this income and failed to apply the correct provisions under the\nAct.\n\n5. Without prejudice to the grounds above, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the challenge\nto the validity of the assessment order passed under Section

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

property, but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2013-14, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 17/08/2016, was issued by the AO. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 on 13/03/2017, declaring an income

THE PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property" and "other sources", and loss from business was not allowed observing that as there remains no business income/activity, the expenditure is not allowed to be set of against income computed under other heads.” 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the case of the assessee had already been subject to assessment u/s. 147

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property’. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provisions of section 28(via) apply to a case where inventory / stock-in-trade converted to a capital asset. In the present case, since there is no conversion of inventory into capital asset, application of section 28(via) is incorrect and thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property’. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provisions of section 28(via) apply to a case where inventory / stock-in-trade converted to a capital asset. In the present case, since there is no conversion of inventory into capital asset, application of section 28(via) is incorrect and thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property’. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provisions of section 28(via) apply to a case where inventory / stock-in-trade converted to a capital asset. In the present case, since there is no conversion of inventory into capital asset, application of section 28(via) is incorrect and thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property’. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provisions of section 28(via) apply to a case where inventory / stock-in-trade converted to a capital asset. In the present case, since there is no conversion of inventory into capital asset, application of section 28(via) is incorrect and thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property’. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provisions of section 28(via) apply to a case where inventory / stock-in-trade converted to a capital asset. In the present case, since there is no conversion of inventory into capital asset, application of section 28(via) is incorrect and thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property’. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provisions of section 28(via) apply to a case where inventory / stock-in-trade converted to a capital asset. In the present case, since there is no conversion of inventory into capital asset, application of section 28(via) is incorrect and thus, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards