ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

1) dated 10.03.2022 wherein the\nassessee was given a show-cause as to why as per available information which suggests\nthat income to the tune of Rs.32,77,900/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment case\nfor the A.Y.2018-19 shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the\nassessment within the meaning of provision of section

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

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

property to claim deduction u/sec.54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.4,82,58,378/-. The Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of the assessee to Rs.2,41,07,403/- for want of supporting bills and documentary evidences. He challenged the Order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A), but, could not succeed. 32. Before the Tribunal

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

250\ndays. The delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is covered\nby Covid period and non-covid period. Further, even if you exclude delay\ncovered by Covid Period, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in M.A. 21/2022, still there is delay of 189 in filing of the appeal\nfor both

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

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

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

250\ndays. The delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is covered\nby Covid period and non-covid period. Further, even if you exclude delay\ncovered by Covid Period, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in M.A. 21/2022, still there is delay of 189 in filing of the appeal\nfor both

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

250\ndays. The delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is covered\nby Covid period and non-covid period. Further, even if you exclude delay\ncovered by Covid Period, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in M.A. 21/2022, still there is delay of 189 in filing of the appeal\nfor both

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

250\ndays. The delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is covered\nby Covid period and non-covid period. Further, even if you exclude delay\ncovered by Covid Period, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in M.A. 21/2022, still there is delay of 189 in filing of the appeal\nfor both

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

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

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. 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

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