IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 22 of the I.T. Act, the income received on the building and land appurtenant thereto, is to be treated as “income from house property”. Therefore, the AO treated it as income from house property and observing that only the expenditure mentioned u/s 24 is to be allowed, the AO observed that the interest portion of Rs.16

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016–17 on 16.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,85,350/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case of the assessee along with M/s Moksha Infracon Private Limited ( “the developer

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

property. According to the development agreement, the assesse was entitled to 48% of the super built-up area in the form of four residential flats. The Hon’ble High Court had held that the four residential flats constitute “a residential house” for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act. Also, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next to PG College. Secunderabad-500 026. PAN : AANFV0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the order passed

RAMA MOHAN SOMA,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HINDUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

house property and interest income. For the AY 2012-13 the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,04,480/-. The said return was processed by CPC. Later on, the case was reopened u/s. 147 based on the information received from ADIT(Inv) Tirupati that the assessee had lent money to one Sri A. Lakshmana

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

254 days, for\nwhich they have filed one combined condonation petition in the form\nof Affidavit.\nLearned Department Representative (“Ld. DR\")\nsubmitted that, during the relevant period of delay of the C.O., there\nwas transfer of the Ld. AO, nomination of the Ld. AO for election\nduty and there were time barring assessment, penalty cases, reopening\nof assessment

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

254 of the Act. In our considered opinion, there is no requirement of any incriminating material for 13 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV making the addition in the year of search i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 and other years were pending adjudication before the authorities and therefore, we do not find merit in the grounds raised by the assessee and accordingly

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

254 of the I.T.Act on 23-12¬2016 rejecting the claim of the appellant and taxing the capital gain in the A.Y.2004-05. The Assessing Officer taxed the capital gains on the ground that the sale of the property actually took place in the previous year 2003-04 relevant to asst. year 2004-05 and rejected the oral agreement claiming

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section for claiming the deduction. It was the case of the Revenue that neither the possession nor registration of flat happened in two years from the date of transfer of capital assets and hence, assessee is not entitled for claim u/s 54 of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR had submitted that the assessee had paid substantial

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

ANAND BODDAPATY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He accordingly, submitted that, the order of the Assessing 6 ITA.No.375/Hyd./2025 Officer allowing exemption u/sec.54F of the Act is in accordance with law and requested the PCIT to drop the proposal for invoking provisions of sec.263 of the Act. The learned PCIT considering the facts and circumstances

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 is allowable under section 37(1) of the IT Act and not u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 13. The appellant contends that the disallowance of the proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585 towards amounts utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under agreement for purchasing land admeasuring 10579 Sq. Yds at Sanant Nagar, Hyderabad

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 is allowable under section 37(1) of the IT Act and not u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 13. The appellant contends that the disallowance of the proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585 towards amounts utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under agreement for purchasing land admeasuring 10579 Sq. Yds at Sanant Nagar, Hyderabad

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

254 involving the statutory expression “may pass such orders” ‘as it thinks fit’ confers widest possible jurisdiction on the Tribunal. :- 8 -: Elgen (India) Pv. Ltd., Hyd. 8.1 The ld. AO and the Sr. DR has discussed this issue and facts of the case in detail and has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

HARNITHA REDDY MAKIREDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

house property and other sources, filed her return of income for both the AYs. Initially the assessments were completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently the assessments were reopened u/s 147 of the Act. 2.1. During the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the AO observed that there was an addition

HARNITHA REDDY MAKIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

house property and other sources, filed her return of income for both the AYs. Initially the assessments were completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently the assessments were reopened u/s 147 of the Act. 2.1. During the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the AO observed that there was an addition