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

253 or an appeal to the High Court\nunder section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under\nsection 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and\nan order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling\npenalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of\npenalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shanta Sriram Constructions Vs The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4180M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Ramarao Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022

house property and on account of interest income. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Page 2 of 9 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is in now in appeal before us. 6. In respect to ground No.2, ld.AR

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

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

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, 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

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

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