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

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The JCIT, Range Head-9, Hyderabad has levied the penalty u/sec.271D vide order dated 10.12.2019 as under: "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-9, HYDERABAD To Shri SAMREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY, 4-34, Karnamguda, IBRAHIMPATNAM

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

House, dated 14.10.2010 Commissioner Raghavachari alongwith of Income Tax, Road, Bellary No. of computation of Central Cirlce- shares: income for the 1(3), Bangalore 1020715960 PAN: financial year 2009- AAAC05753D 10 relevant to Ward: DCIT, CC assessment year 1(3), 2010-11 in the case of BLR/DLC/CC/06 M/s Obula Puram 8/03 Mining Co. (P) Ltd. (page 148-149 of Paper

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

House, dated 14.10.2010 Commissioner Raghavachari alongwith of Income Tax, Road, Bellary No. of computation of Central Cirlce- shares: income for the 1(3), Bangalore 1020715960 PAN: financial year 2009- AAAC05753D 10 relevant to Ward: DCIT, CC assessment year 1(3), 2010-11 in the case of BLR/DLC/CC/06 M/s Obula Puram 8/03 Mining Co. (P) Ltd. (page 148-149 of Paper

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

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

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

house, vide a registered sale deed\ndated 23.07.2011 an amount of Rs.90 lac. Apart from that, it was\nobserved by him that the assessee had made payments of Rs.72\nlacs towards the construction/renovation based on an\nunregistered agreement dated 18.04.2008 in respect of the new\nhouse property. Considering the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A)\naccepted the assessee's claim

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

253(1)(d) of the Act. The directions of the DRP u/s 144(5) of the Act, are not appealable before the ITAT. Under those circumstances, in our view, the directions of the DRP, which is a higher authority cannot be said to have merged with the order of the Assessing Officer, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated

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

5. In so far as the receipts on account of Layout Regularization Charges (LRS) and Building Penalization Charges (BPS), according to the Assessing officer, 100% of the receipt is to be considered as income. Whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) held that only the amount allowed to be utilized by the assessee as per the Govt. order can be treated