AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 263 of the Act, holding that the property sold cannot be considered as a residential house property, since there

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

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

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

house bearing Municipal No.17-1-336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N.\nReddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of\nRs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this\ntransaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the\nprovision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty\nu/s.271D.\nSection 269SS

RATANLAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without holding these properties for a minimum period of 3 years, the assessee could not have claimed

CHANDRA DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without holding these properties for a minimum period of 3 years, the assessee could not have claimed

MADHU DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without holding these properties for a minimum period of 3 years, the assessee could not have claimed

RAJESH KUMAR JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without holding these properties for a minimum period of 3 years, the assessee could not have claimed

SATYASREE KAMINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyasree Kamineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adopk6338C] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.529/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ushasree Bandaru Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Acepb2973M] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Filed By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Ld.Pcit”) Both Dated 26.03.2024 Passed U/S 263 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By Both The Assessees. The Grounds Raised In The Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 Are Reproduced As Under :

property as employed in section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Thus, once the allotment of shares under Right Issue to the existing shareholders does not fall in the mischief of section 56(2)(vii)(c), then the question of any error in the assessment order as well as under assessment of income by the AO, while passing

USHASREE BANDARU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyasree Kamineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adopk6338C] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.529/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ushasree Bandaru Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Acepb2973M] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Filed By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Ld.Pcit”) Both Dated 26.03.2024 Passed U/S 263 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By Both The Assessees. The Grounds Raised In The Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 Are Reproduced As Under :

property as employed in section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Thus, once the allotment of shares under Right Issue to the existing shareholders does not fall in the mischief of section 56(2)(vii)(c), then the question of any error in the assessment order as well as under assessment of income by the AO, while passing

RAMESH MUNAIAH CHINTAKUNTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

House Property at ₹ 52,01,609/-, interest income to the tune of ₹ 34, 866/-and income from capital gains amounting to ₹ 9,56,412/-. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 28/3/2014, declaring an income of ₹ 1,70,92,890/-. Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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

Section 2(14) is very widely defined to mean property of any kind held by an tax-payer, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The exceptions are also provided u/s 2(14) wherein property shall not be included in the definition of capital asset. We have also observed that CBDT own circulars bearing 471 dated

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

house property that was received by him from the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers, Nizamabad, claimed the deduction of the entire amount of capital gain under section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee had not offered any capital gain for tax on the transfer of 1041.34 sq yds of land to the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers

KUSHAL DAS DAYARAM MANGHANANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Kushal Das Dayaram Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Manghanani, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Agbpm9633N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. 20.03.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

section 23(1)(a) for this assessment. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by adding Rs. 34,27,200/- as income from house property to the total income of the assessee and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263

HARISH KUMAR MURALIDHAR HARWANI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(1) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Harish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Muralidhar Harwani, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aayph0485N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Of The Learned Pr.Cit -1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act By The Pcit-I.

house property, Rs.5,97,000/- from salary, Rs.18,96,125/- from business, Rs. Nil from capital gains and Rs.19,90,573/- from other sources. He noted that the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the “low income from TCS receipts-liquor”. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and accepted