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

2) HYDERABAD\nTo.\nKUMAR JAIN ANKIT\nD.No.5-3-846, Sri Sai Ruchi Apts,, Flat No.405, Near\nSharavan Hospital Goshamahal\nHYDERABAD 500012, Telangana\nIndia\nPAN:\nAGWPA4459K\nA.Y:\n2018-19\nDated:\n30/03/2022\nDIN & Notice No:\nITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042054625(1)\nName of the assessee\nKUMAR JAIN ANKIT\nAddress of the assessee\nD.No.5-3-846, Sri Sai Ruchi Apts,, Flat No.405, Near\nSharavan Hospital

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

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 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only

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

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 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only

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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

250/- along with agriculture income of Rs.1,60,600/-.\nThereafter, the assessee filed a “revised” return of income on\n30.03.2009, wherein he had declared an income of Rs.50,72,667/-\nalong with agriculture income of Rs.1,60,600/-. Subsequently,\nthe case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment\nunder Section 143(2) of the Act.\n3.\nDuring the course

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

250/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFor this and for such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant\nsubmits that the additions made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted.\nITA No.308/Hyd/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Revenue\n(i) Whether the Order of the Ld.CIT(Appeal) is erroneous on facts

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

250/- under Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFor this and for such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant\nsubmits that the additions made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted.\nITA No.308/Hyd/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Revenue\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\n(iv)\n(v)\n(vi)\nWhether

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

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 the head income from other sources. 3. The NFAC erred in assuming that there was no agreement with respect to the rental receipts whereas the fact remains that an agreement was entered into between

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

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

section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2.1. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 74 days. The appellant / Revenue has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In this connection, the appellant has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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