KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

255 Taxmann 305) and held that: "On a plain reading of section 28(iv), prima facie, it appears that for the applicability of the said provision, the income which can be taxed shall arise from the business or profession. Also, in order to invoke the provision of section 28(iv), the benefit which is received has to be in some

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 :

255 (Kar.), wherein the computation of book profit with reference to sections 14A and 115JB has been considered and it is held that Explanation 1 in section 115JB(2) has been inserted so as to provide that if any provision for diminution in the value of any asset has been debited to the profit and loss account, it shall

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJA BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.Nos.596 & 597/Hyd

4),\nvs.\nLate Nimmatoori Raja\nBabu, L/R by Anudeep\nNimmatoori, Hyderabad.\nPAN ACSPN1662R\nNimmatoori Ramesh\nBabu, Hyderabad.\nPAN ACSPN 1659G\nTelangana.\nHyderabad.\nTelangana.\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nFor Assessees :\nCA, P. Murali Mohan Rao\nFor Revenue :\nSri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR\nDate of Hearing :\n18.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025\nORDER\nPER MANJUNATHA G. :\nThe above appeal ITA.No.594/Hyd./2025

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision , then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE V.Favourite Industries (2012) 16 GSTR 184(SC); (2012) 7 SCC 153 has succinctly observed thus (page 191 of 16 GSTR)" At page-575 "It is now a well-established principle

PRODDATURI SANJAY KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Proddaturi Sanjay Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Bfbps1905P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Prabhakar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

Section 115BBE arbitrarily, without establishing any unexplained investment or expenditure. 4. That the Learned AO failed to consider the nature of business and the small-scale operations of the appellant while making an excessive addition. 5. That the Learned AO erred in not appreciating that the appellant had duly explained the sources of payments made through credit cards

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. VENKATARAMANA REDDY KATPALLI , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1799/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Vs. Sri Venkataramana Reddy Of Income Tax, Katpalli, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Adopk7258H] अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

house during the financial year 2015-16, withdrew the deposit in the capital gain account and claimed benefit under section 54F of the Act. He, therefore, submits that it is perfectly legal under section 45(2) read with section 2(47)(iv) of the Act. Insofar as his own plots are concerned, learned Assessing Officer himself allowed the benefit under

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

255, 260) where a mortage company had raised money by the issue of debentures and debentures stock and incurred expenses in this connection. The English High Court said that the expenses would not be deducted as trading expenses because the amount paid was for raising capital. Differing from the observations made therein, this Court observed that a loan

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

255, 260) where a mortage company had raised money by the issue of debentures and debentures stock and incurred expenses in this connection. The English High Court said that the expenses would not be deducted as trading expenses because the amount paid was for raising capital. Differing from the observations made therein, this Court observed that a loan