SURENDRA BABU SABBINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

section 263 proceedings, the AO obtained details of properties owned by the assessee and noticed that out of seven properties, two properties are not residential but the remaining five properties namely the house

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

Properties vs. Director of Income- tax (supra). The contention of the assessee in this case was that, the order framed on the directions given by the DDIT u/s 144A of the Act, could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act, as to the extent, the Assessing Officer could not be said to have applied his mind. The Tribunal held

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

Section 263 of the Act. 8. Although the assessee objected to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT for two-fold reasons, viz. (i) that the capital gain disclosed by the assessee was examined twice by the Assessing Officer; and (ii) that the purported revision of the assessment order based on an audit objection was not permitted

TALLURI SRINIVASULU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nellore. Pan – Aaupt9827G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad Revenue By: Shri Balakrishna Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

Section 263 is bad in law as the Assessing officer has taken a plausible view while completing the Assessment and hence the Assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous which Is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the PCIT is void as the learned PCIT

V.RAJASEKHAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

263 of the Act. 3.1. The ld.AR had submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued the show cause notice u/s. 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to furnish the following information: “2.1 A letter was filed by you before the undersigned on 09.03.2016 stating that the land of 2153 sq yds. received from your brother through gift

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

BBR PROJECTS LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

properties and therefore, the conclusion drawn by the ld.PCIT was incorrect. 15. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has drawn our attention to the computation of income for A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the revenue from operation has been shown as nil and therefore, the ld.PCIT was right in disallowing the expenditure and rightly held that the same

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

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

House Property" in the impugned assessment years in the absence of complete details. Suffice to say that for analyzing the issue in respect of jurisdiction under section 263

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Nsl Renewable Power Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(1), Pan – Aabcn 6009L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/01/2022

section 263 of IT Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s. 263, dated 13-11-2018 was issued to the assessee as to why the Assessment order dtd. 30-11-2016 should not be revised as per the issues mentioned therein. 4. In response to the above said notice dtd.13-11-2018, the AR of the assessee submitted as under

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

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

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