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

section 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only on the issue of certificate of completion of the project is applicable to the A.Y. i.e. 2017-18, following the doctrine of fairness.” 15. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15.1 Ground Nos.2

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

section 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only on the issue of certificate of completion of the project is applicable to the A.Y. i.e. 2017-18, following the doctrine of fairness.” 15. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15.1 Ground Nos.2

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

250/- vide cheque No.896026 dated 28-04-2016, drawn ICICI bank which is including of TDS u/s 194IA. 12.1 Thus, the appellant has factually demonstrated, that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plot was reinvested in a residential property, though the legal formalities of getting the property in the appellant’s name did not take place within

ABDUL SALAM SHAIK,PILER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

250 read with Section 143(3) of the Act\ndated 29.07.2025 whereby an addition of Rs.9,70,000/- has been deleted.\nAccordingly, the issue that survives for adjudication before the Tribunal relates\nto the balance addition of Rs.1,02,28,860/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that\nthe assessee had explained the entire source of investment in the house\nproperty

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

TARA CHAND 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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

250 of the Act\ndt. 29.09.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent\nthe order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, without admitting\nthe appeal for adjudication on the reason of belated filing.\n3. The Ld. CTT(A) erred in not condoning the delay

NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

250, thereby failing to provide the appellant an opportunity to rectify or respond to the alleged deficiencies, in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4.a) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,56,130/- received from HY Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. as unexplained rental income, without appreciating

ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SUDHEER RAAVI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Housing Finance Ltd., for purchase of property. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, requested the assessee vide notice issued under section 250

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.01.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO has erred

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.01.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO has erred