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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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

6. The NFAC erred in confining itself to the figure appearing under schedule AL in the return of income since the said figure was mistakenly entered by the accountant ignoring the correct amount of Rs. 36,66,031/- available as opening cash in hand of the Appellant as on 01.04.2016. 7. The NFAC. erred in solely relying on the figure

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

RAMULAMMA SINGIRIKONDA, 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

SINGIRIKONDA RAVINDER (HUF), 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

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 RAVINDER,SURYAPET 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

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 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

SINGIRIKONDA KARUNA,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

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 (HUF), 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