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

4 plots at\nBhongir District, therefore, it was, inter alia, on the said count also,\ndisentitled from raising the claim of deduction under Section 54F of\nthe Act.\n11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before\nthe CIT(A) (second round of litigation)\n12. The CIT(A), after necessary deliberations, concluded that\nperusal of the documents that were

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

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

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

250/- in the computation sheet even though there is no mention of the same in the Assessment order or appellate order. 10. The tax authorities omitted to consider the ratio laid down by the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) 1983 140 ITR 705 (Mad) (HC) wherein the Court observed that Income

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

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)

250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised one effective ground in all the four appeals relating to different assessees for the AY 2014-15 and the ground is abridged herein below for adjudication. “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 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)

250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised one effective ground in all the four appeals relating to different assessees for the AY 2014-15 and the ground is abridged herein below for adjudication. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in treating the interest income earned by the assessee as “capital receipt” instead

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.:

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 of treating it as “income from other source

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

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

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

SINGIRIKONDA MANASA, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

250(6) of the Kumar 31/1/2017 Act. Singirikonda 2. In the case of Singirikonda Surender (HUF), the assessee has raised four identical grounds in its four appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

250(6) of the Kumar 31/1/2017 Act. Singirikonda 2. In the case of Singirikonda Surender (HUF), the assessee has raised four identical grounds in its four appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that

SINGIRIKONDA INDUMATHI, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

250(6) of the Kumar 31/1/2017 Act. Singirikonda 2. In the case of Singirikonda Surender (HUF), the assessee has raised four identical grounds in its four appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that

SINGIRIKONDA VAMSIKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

250(6) of the Kumar 31/1/2017 Act. Singirikonda 2. In the case of Singirikonda Surender (HUF), the assessee has raised four identical grounds in its four appeals and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that