KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

house bearing Municipal No.17-1-336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section 269SS

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

house bearing Municipal No.17-1- 336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA KAZA, HYDERABAD

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

house, maintenance charges collection, the maintenance of the project by the developer, the, contribution to corpus fund etc (from paragraphs 2 to 18 of the agreement). The only point of the no objection comes in para 1 where the second party (earlier developer assigned its rights). When land owners and the developer are coming up with new terms, saying this

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA KAZA, , PEDAGONNURU

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

house, maintenance charges collection, the maintenance of the project by the developer, the, contribution to corpus fund etc (from paragraphs 2 to 18 of the agreement). The only point of the no objection comes in para 1 where the second party (earlier developer assigned its rights). When land owners and the developer are coming up with new terms, saying this

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

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

house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document :- 2 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

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

house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document :- 2 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

253 and Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170. 7. Learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the submissions on all these aspects. He considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an Urban Development Authority constituted under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. The assessee registered u/s 12A vide CIT(E)/12A/ITAT/2015-16 dt.26.12.2016. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the return of income was revised on 31.03.2019. The return was processed

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an Urban Development Authority constituted under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. The assessee registered u/s 12A vide CIT(E)/12A/ITAT/2015-16 dt.26.12.2016. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the return of income was revised on 31.03.2019. The return was processed

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer has not considered the claim for expenditure against the Development Charges. The receipt of the Development charges to the extent of 85% is recorded in the books of account