CHALLA SATISH REDDY HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 46/Hyd/2020 ( िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 )

house property accordingly, as was followed in this case by the Ld. CIT(A) for the AY.2012-13. We order so and accordingly allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. 12. Now coming to the issue relating to the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 54EC of the Act to the tune of Rs.100 Lakhs invested

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

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

Section 192) WIPRO LIMITED 12 Amount paid or credited 904142 TDS-192 2. The assesse has filed return of income declaring income from salary (Gross salary Rs.9,04,142). Further, the assesse has declared loss from house property

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

MALI NARASIMHA (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1),, HYDERABAD vs. SRI DAPPU ASHOK (HUF),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

SRI KANDADA BABU RAO, R.R. DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

DAPPU NAVEEN KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

DAPPU NARASIMHA ( LARGER HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

KONDE SRISAILAM (HUF),,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF IT CIRCLE -8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

MALI CHANDRASEKHAR (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

KONDE ANJAIAH (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

KONDE NARASIMHA (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

SRI JILAKARA NARASIMHA, R.R. DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

KONDE MALLESH(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

DAPPU NARASIMHA (HUF), RR DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

DAPPU RAMULU (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

JILKARA CHINNA SATAIAH (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE - 8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land