SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

property, viz. Villa No. 53 (supra) much in excess of the sale consideration of Rs. 72.54 lacs of his old residential house, viz. House No. 10-3-734/3 situated at Vijaynagar Colony, Malleapally, Hyderabad, therefore, we find no reason for declining of his claim of exemption under Section 54 of the Act by both the lower authorities. 17

SATYA SAYEE BABU DIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1268/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2022-23) Satya Sayee Babu Divi, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Ayeps7457B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Satya Sayee Babu Divi, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25/06/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 22 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be treated as the owner of the property at Lodha, Kukatpally during the year under consideration. Consequently, the addition of Rs.3,62,880/- made under the head “Income from House Property” is unsustainable. Hence, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house by way of gift deed just prior to the effective date. Further, under sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when the object is to defeat any provisions of law, and when consideration is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, the contract will be void. In the present

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

17-06-2021, has held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, from the income from house property. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below, for your kind reference: “2.1 In view of the above of our discussion, the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

17-06-2021, has held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, from the income from house property. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below, for your kind reference: “2.1 In view of the above of our discussion, the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IA

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 294 of the Act. 11. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to delete the arbitrary additions made and upheld by the lower authorities. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 24.07.2017, declaring

HYDERABAD INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs.” 7.5 On perusal of above, we found that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case has held that, where the main object of the company is letting out, then

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

17-19 of assessment order) gave conclusive finding that transfer of property had taken place in the AY 2008-09 and therefore capital gains arising thereon has to be brought to tax in the AY 2008-09. 2.9 The AO observed that whether the land sold is a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act is the next question