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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa\nvs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue\nand held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity\nof investors are established, no additions can be made as cash\ncredit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

House International (P) Ltd. (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered similar issue and held that once, genuineness and creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no additions can be made as cash credit, on the ground that investor company and directors have

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act, though the powers of revision u/s 263 do not extend to such assessment order passed with the prior approval of the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. 3. The Ld. Principal CIT erred in law in setting aside the approval given by the JCIT