DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

17,85,27,914/- from such properties. He observed that assessee has offered this income as ‘income from house property’ and has claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act. He also observed that apart from the income from house property, the assessee also claimed business loss of Rs. 1,51,03,227/-. The assessee was therefore

CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

17,85,27,914/- from such properties. He observed that assessee has offered this income as ‘income from house property’ and has claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act. He also observed that apart from the income from house property, the assessee also claimed business loss of Rs. 1,51,03,227/-. The assessee was therefore

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

Bench: Us:

D E R "ित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14/08/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3) of the Income

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

d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assessment

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

d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assessment

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

house property and does not have any brought forward loss 3[or loss to be carried forward] under the head; or (iii) xxxxx 4[(I) has assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; (IA) has signing authority in any account located outside India; (IB) has income from any source outside India; (IC) has income to be apportioned

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue

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

D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 06.07.2022 for the A.Y 2015-16, on the following grounds : “1. In computing the total income, the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the order

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

d) of Section 269-UA Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021

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

d) of Section 269-UA Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

5. In order to verify the allowability of assessee's claim during the relevant A.Y, AO made a reference to the District Valuation Officer of the Department to inspect the housing project and verify its eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The DVO, after inspection of the housing project, vide valuation report dated 22.03.2013, submitted a detailed

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

5. In order to verify the allowability of assessee's claim during the relevant A.Y, AO made a reference to the District Valuation Officer of the Department to inspect the housing project and verify its eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The DVO, after inspection of the housing project, vide valuation report dated 22.03.2013, submitted a detailed

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

5. In order to verify the allowability of assessee's claim during the relevant A.Y, AO made a reference to the District Valuation Officer of the Department to inspect the housing project and verify its eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The DVO, after inspection of the housing project, vide valuation report dated 22.03.2013, submitted a detailed

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

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals filed by the assessees (pertain to the family members) are directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 2, Hyderabad, dated, 19th December, 2017 for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. As identical issues are involved in these 2 I.T.A. No. 454Hyd/18 and others Md. Abbas Qureshi and others appeals

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

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals filed by the assessees (pertain to the family members) are directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 2, Hyderabad, dated, 19th December, 2017 for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. As identical issues are involved in these 2 I.T.A. No. 454Hyd/18 and others Md. Abbas Qureshi and others appeals

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

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals filed by the assessees (pertain to the family members) are directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 2, Hyderabad, dated, 19th December, 2017 for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. As identical issues are involved in these 2 I.T.A. No. 454Hyd/18 and others Md. Abbas Qureshi and others appeals

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

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals filed by the assessees (pertain to the family members) are directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 2, Hyderabad, dated, 19th December, 2017 for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. As identical issues are involved in these 2 I.T.A. No. 454Hyd/18 and others Md. Abbas Qureshi and others appeals

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

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals filed by the assessees (pertain to the family members) are directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 2, Hyderabad, dated, 19th December, 2017 for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. As identical issues are involved in these 2 I.T.A. No. 454Hyd/18 and others Md. Abbas Qureshi and others appeals