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. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

KAVYA 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. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

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. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

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. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

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. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

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. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ORISSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house rent expenses of Rs.9,88,987/- debited under the head 'Traveling expenses' and by disallowing claim of expenditure of Rs.12,83,810/- being expenses not related to the heads under which they were claimed. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 491 & 492/Hyd/2021 Rail Road Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ORISSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house rent expenses of Rs.9,88,987/- debited under the head 'Traveling expenses' and by disallowing claim of expenditure of Rs.12,83,810/- being expenses not related to the heads under which they were claimed. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 491 & 492/Hyd/2021 Rail Road Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before

IMTIAZ FAROOQI ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property, business and other sources. He is also the proprietor of M/s Infoway Technologies and Managing Director of M/s United Railroad Constructions Private Limited. 3. For the assessment year 2010-11 he filed the return of income on 22/11/2010 and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was complete by order

IMTIAZ FAROOQI,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property, business and other sources. He is also the proprietor of M/s Infoway Technologies and Managing Director of M/s United Railroad Constructions Private Limited. 3. For the assessment year 2010-11 he filed the return of income on 22/11/2010 and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was complete by order

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

house on the date of transfer process of the long term asset, the request of tax exemption on capital gain is not valid. Since the case of the assessee in the instant case is hit by the proviso (a)(i) of section 54F of the I.T. Act, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit of deduction

THATIPALLI DHANALAKSHMI,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property. For the assessment year 2015-16, she filed her return of income on 31/03/2016 declaring income at Rs. 38,26,050/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) without initiation of the proceedings under section 143(2) of the Act and it attained finality. 3. Subsequently, search

KANISHK GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.34/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances. In the absence of any asset being in possession of the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall not have issued the notice to the assessee for making the addition u/s 153A of the Act. In view of the above, the addition made in the hands of the assessee

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry