JYOTHI BHANOTH ,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2014-15 Jyothi Bhanoth, Vs. Acit, Khammam. Circle-1, Pan: Anopb 4718 R Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2014- 15. 2. The assessee has raised nine grounds in her appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO who had invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and brought

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

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.:

250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised three grounds in her appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had denied the claim of exemption U/s. 54 of the Act because the assessee has purchased

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PAGIDI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Janardhan Reddy, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aikpp 2277 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Ramachandra Central Circle-2(4), Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalpp 5927 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2013-14. Since the issues involved in both these Department appeals are identical and related to the same fact they are taken up for hearing together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The revenue has raised 6 identical grounds in both these appeals; however, the crux of the issue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PAGIDI JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Janardhan Reddy, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aikpp 2277 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Ramachandra Central Circle-2(4), Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalpp 5927 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2013-14. Since the issues involved in both these Department appeals are identical and related to the same fact they are taken up for hearing together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The revenue has raised 6 identical grounds in both these appeals; however, the crux of the issue