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

Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he submitted that the proportionate deduction is to be disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee

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

Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he submitted that the proportionate deduction is to be disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee

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 :

249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts of the case are that 11 companies amalgamated with the appellant vide the order of High Court dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f 01.04.2011. The amalgamating companies had identical shareholders and shareholding

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

house property: 8.4 In this context, it is important to understand the principle of mutuality before adjudicating the issue on hand. It is well settled principle of law that, in order to fulfil the requirement of mutuality, a mutual association has to establish the crucial criteria that there is identity between contributors and participators / recipients to the fund i.e. there

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

249(3) of Act and ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicated the grounds on merit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the basis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the control

SINGIRIKONDA RAVINDER (HUF), SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

RAMULAMMA SINGIRIKONDA, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA VAMSIKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA INDUMATHI, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA INDUMATHI, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA RAVINDER,SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA MANASA, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA KARUNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

SINGIRIKONDA VAMSIKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case

S. PRADEEP KUMAR (HUF), SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

properties is taxable in the assessment of the major HUF. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. In the case of Indumathi Singirikonda, the assessee has raised six identical grounds in her two appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference: :- 5 -: Singirikonda Surender and others (Group Case