EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961/37Aof-the WT Act-1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place of mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Shri Satendra Sharma (Security incharge) who was present in the said place at the time and after-reading

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this\nsection referred to as the new asset), the difference between the\namount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be\ncharged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and\nfor the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any\ncapital gain arising

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that: - (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the charge levied U/s. 201(1) of the Act for Rs.2,74,18,600 towards non-deduction

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

1), PAN: BIVPB 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue by: Shri N. Srikanth, DR Date of hearing: 12/01/2021 Date of pronouncement: 04/02/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0011/CIT(A)-10/2016-17, dated 14/08/2019

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 :

1 in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by him against the appellant. Under these circumstances we do not propose to deal with the point of law sought to be raised by Mr. Nambiar. We would, however, like to add one direction in fairness to the appellants. The proceedings taken against both the appellants should continue and should be dealt

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

1,81,90,250/- 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

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

250 of the Act dt. 29.09.2025 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 in dismissing the appeal, without admitting the appeal for adjudication on the reason of belated filing. 3. The Ld. CTT(A) erred in not condoning the delay

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Properties vs. Director of Income- tax (supra). The contention of the assessee in this case was that, the order framed on the directions given by the DDIT u/s 144A of the Act, could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act, as to the extent, the Assessing Officer could not be said to have applied his mind. The Tribunal held

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre(hereinafter referred to as NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.11,02,500/- on account of rental receipt from M/s leadspace under

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad ought to have held that the capital gains accrue U/s. 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 only as and when the possession of the villa is given and occupancy certificate is given by the appropriate authority. 2. The liability to capital gains in the case of the appellant arises only when both

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad ought to have held that the capital gains accrue U/s. 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 only as and when the possession of the villa is given and occupancy certificate is given by the appropriate authority. 2. The liability to capital gains in the case of the appellant arises only when both

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.:

1)/CIT(A)-4, Hyd/19-20, dated 17/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in treating the interest income earned by the assessee as “capital receipt” instead

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)

1), Mothalli Haveri Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. PAN: AAECK 1987 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 24/11/2021 Date of pronouncement: 25/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: All the captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Hyderabad

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)

1), Mothalli Haveri Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. PAN: AAECK 1987 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 24/11/2021 Date of pronouncement: 25/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: All the captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Hyderabad

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the assessment order of Assessing Officer making addition f Rs. 21,66,244/- on account of long-term capital gains is against the facts of the case and provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

250/- in the books of UEPL was distributed among demerged companies, viz., M/s.Eenadu Television Private Limited, M/s.Prism TV Private Limited and M/s.Panorama Television Private Limited, out of which Appellant's share was Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For Asst. year 2015- 16, depreciation was claimed at Rs.16,79,62,330/- @ 25% of its WDV of Rs.67

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. VARALA JANGA REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by\nthe assessee for both the Asst

1.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Id. CIT(A) erred in drawing certain presumptions which are not\ncorrect?\n2.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Id. CIT(A) erred in law while comparing the estimation in the hands\non the Spectra Group has failed

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

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