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 INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA 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

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

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

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised three grounds in her appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had denied the claim of exemption U/s. 54 of the Act because the assessee

KASUSALYA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

PREETHI FOODS AND VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KHAMMAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

UJWALA PUBLICATIONS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

KAUSALYA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

KAUSALYA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

PREETHI FOODS AND VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KHAMMAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order