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:

house rent, capital gain and other sources being interest from Bank. The assessee filed his return of income on 8/8/2008 declaring total income of Rs.28,78,260/-. The return of income was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Later on, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 06/07/2012

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

260 M to 1500 Μ. • Formation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m. (approximate). • Construction of Infall regulator. • Construction of off take regulator. • Excavation of leading channel. • Formation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles. • Excavation of connecting channel. • Excavation of surplus course. • Construction of Depletion sluice. 20 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV • Regrading of vagu on Upstream and Downstream of Spillway

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

260 M to 1500 M.\n•\nFormation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m.\n(approximate).\n•\nConstruction of Infall regulator.\n•\nConstruction of off take regulator.\n•\nExcavation of leading channel.\n•\nFormation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles.\n•\nExcavation of connecting channel.\n•\nExcavation of surplus course.\n•\nConstruction of Depletion sluice.\n•\nRegrading of vagu

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

260 M to 1500 M.\n• Formation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m.\n(approximate).\n• Construction of Infall regulator.\n• Construction of off take regulator.\n• Excavation of leading channel.\n• Formation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles.\n• Excavation of connecting channel.\n• Excavation of surplus course.\n• Construction of Depletion sluice.\n• Regrading of vagu

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

260 M to 1500 М.\n•\nFormation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m.\n(approximate).\n•\nConstruction of Infall regulator.\n•\nConstruction of off take regulator.\n•\nExcavation of leading channel.\n•\nFormation of Kondajuturu and Rachacheruvu saddles.\n•\nExcavation of connecting channel.\n•\nExcavation of surplus course.\n•\nConstruction of Depletion sluice.\n•\nRegrading of vagu

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

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

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 45(5A) of the Act, a settled position of law has laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that capital gain arises in the year in which possession is handed over in part performance of the contract

SRINIVAS CHOWDARY VALLABANENI,SECUNDERAB vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1462/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Srinivas Chowdary Vs. Dy.Cit Vallabaneni, Secunderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Aeipv3757R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 05.10.2018 in the cases of various persons, including the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2019–20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019, admitting a total

ANNE MANOJ CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

house property and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Subhagraha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd along with its group companies and connected concerns/individuals on 5.10.2018 during which the case of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income

VALLABHANENI SRINIVAS CHOWDARY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

house property and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Subhagraha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd along with its group companies and connected concerns/individuals on 5.10.2018 during which the case of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income

ANNE RAJESWARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

house property and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Subhagraha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd along with its group companies and connected concerns/individuals on 5.10.2018 during which the case of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income

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

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 is a liability

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

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 is a liability

YUGANDHAR CHEVULA,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, NELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Yugandhar Chevula Vs. Income Tax Officer Nellore Ward – 2 Pan:Afepc1696R Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/Order

housing loan. The Income Tax Inspector on inspection of the construction reported that the construction was not a residential construction but it was a function all. As the assessee has not fulfilled the main object for claiming of exemption u/s 54, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of exemption. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and made a demand