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

153A or sub-section (2)\nof Section 153C. To sum up, the obligation cast upon an assessee to\ncall in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-\nsection (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where he objects to the\nassumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, and not otherwise.\n19. At this stage

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

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

TARA CHAND 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

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

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

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. 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. 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

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. 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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 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

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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(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

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

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