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

Section 28 cannot be invoked and the income received cannot be treated as profits of business. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT [394 ITR 592] (SC), wherein it was held that – The assessee acquired leasehold rights in a property, constructed various shops and stalls

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

Bench: Us:

20. Before parting, we may herein observe, that the Ld. DR’s claim that as the assessee as on the date of transfer of the old residential house was an owner of more than one residential property, therefore, on the said count itself he was disentitled from claiming exemption under Section

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 Property, Business, Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee produced relevant record and information before the Assessing Authority and the Assessing Authority ultimately passed the impugned assessment order for the said Assessment Year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house and hence, he claimed deduction of Rs.3,22,36,779/- u/s 54 of the Act. On perusal of the entire record and the replies submitted by the assessee, Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 54F in as much as the net consideration

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

house property”, “Capital gains”, “Income from other sources”, etc. 17. Thus, in order to avail the benefit of the decision, the assessee is required to fulfil the primary condition that there is otherwise taxable income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. Once such condition is fulfilled, then the assessee can claim the entire amount of income

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

house property”, “Capital gains”, “Income from other sources”, etc. 17. Thus, in order to avail the benefit of the decision, the assessee is required to fulfil the primary condition that there is otherwise taxable income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. Once such condition is fulfilled, then the assessee can claim the entire amount of income

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 keeping for common area. ITA-TP No.1856/Hyd/2019 18 8. Electricity and lighting for common areas. 9. Landscape maintenance, as applicable. 10. Pest Control in common areas only. 11. Toilet upkeep – common area toilets only. 12. Parking (Four/Two wheeler) Management.” 8.4 On perusal of both the agreements entered into by the assessee with its tenants, we found that the income

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

house in the owner’s portion with 40% terrace rights. 6. That as a performance guarantee the Second Party have deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with First Party vide Pay Order No.002314 dated 04.05.1996 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait B.S.C., Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The receipt

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

house in the owner’s portion with 40% terrace rights. 6. That as a performance guarantee the Second Party have deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with First Party vide Pay Order No.002314 dated 04.05.1996 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait B.S.C., Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The receipt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 57(iii) and it was held that when the assessee borrowed the funds for business, the interest earned on short term deposit of such funds cannot be allowed as deduction. 19. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra). The assessee company invested its paid-up share capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 57(iii) and it was held that when the assessee borrowed the funds for business, the interest earned on short term deposit of such funds cannot be allowed as deduction. 19. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra). The assessee company invested its paid-up share capital

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 57(iii) and it was held that when the assessee borrowed the funds for business, the interest earned on short term deposit of such funds cannot be allowed as deduction. 19. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra). The assessee company invested its paid-up share capital

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

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

House Property' offered by the Appellant. Thereafter, the Ld AO., after discussing and verifying the eligibility of the deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act allowed a deduction under that section to the extent of Rs 13,67,23,850. The matter pertaining to head of taxation of the Income from leasing activities was then subject to litigation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

house' indicates the nature of property to be acquired and not a number of properties. The appellant also placed reliance on the decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao [365 ITR 249](2013) wherein it was held that the elements of the factual position and the year in which agreement was entered into were relevant

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

20 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of the following persons, namely:-- (i) the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such