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

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

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

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

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

Bench: Us:

23. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the affirm conviction that as the assessee had based on sale of his old residential property, viz. House No. 10-3-734/3 situated at Vijaynagar Colony, Malleapally, Hyderabad had made an investment towards purchase of the new residential house property, viz. Villa No. 53 (supra), therefore, no infirmity arises from

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:

5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adding Rs. 1,23,984/- to the total income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property by considering Bhavya Sri Arcade- H.No. 7-1-01/2, No.301 Dharma Karam Road Ameerpet, Hyderabad as deemed let-out. However, the assessee inadvertently considered the said property as vacant

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

5 Rachit v. Shah a colourable device to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the ground of the appellant is dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. The Ld.AR had made the following submissions before us. Firstly, it was submitted that

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property'. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.48,09,502/- made by the Assessing Officer was without considering the deduction towards vacancy allowance and ignoring the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred

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

23. In view of this matter and considering the facts of the present cases, and also by considering ratios of various High Courts, we are of the considered view, that once the CCDs issued by the appellant are denominated in Indian currency, the interest ITA-TP No.1856/Hyd/2019 5 payment on the said CCDs is to be benchmarked with reference

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

5. Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A., submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the assessee, even though the assessee has invested the entire amount of sale consideration received pursuant to the JDA dated

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

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that there was a "transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47) of the I.T Act on the basis of supplementary agreement registered on 16/07/2016 which was only an agreement to identity the villas to be allotted to various land owners including the appellant. 6. Whether the provisions of section

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

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that there was a "transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47) of the I.T Act on the basis of supplementary agreement registered on 16/07/2016 which was only an agreement to identity the villas to be allotted to various land owners including the appellant. 6. Whether the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

house (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement of sale, the purchaser has paid an amount of Rs3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores and five lakhs only) towards earnest /advance sale consideration in favour of the vendor/developer of the second part as under

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts