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

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

Bench: Us.

2, Ambikapur, SLP (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/3024, dated 31.01.2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon’ble High court of Chattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while

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

2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the assessee did not file his return of income, a notice under section 148 dated 26.03.2015 issued. In response to this notice, the assessee filed return of income on 27.03.2016 admitting NIL income and the assessment was completed accepting the income returned. 3.2 During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted

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 at Sai Praveen Kuteer, Flat No.1,4 and 204 at Sai Lakshmi Nilayam, Sherilingampalli at Hyderabad and Swastik Apartment at Siliguri are residential units and therefore

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

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

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Chartered Accountant by profession, filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 admitting total income of Rs. 5,55,100/- and agricultural income of Rs. 5,50,000/-. Assessee derives income from house property, from business or profession and from other sources. The case was selected

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

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

property. Assessee also submitted that photographs of the new house were enclosed. So also, the copy of confirmation letter from M/s. Skybridge Construction regarding the payment and construction work undertaken by them. Apart from this, the assessee maintained that the Inspector attached to the O/o. DCIT, Circle-2(2), inspected the new building, taken photographs and submitted a report

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

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

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

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

263 by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to the effect that inadequate enquiry would also attract revision proceedings. 7. We now proceed to deal with the relevant factual matrix. It is an admitted fact that these assessees’ had received all their consideration money in cash only in furtherance to the sale agreement dt.01.04.2011 culminating to sale deed dt.14.11.2013. There

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

263 by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to the effect that inadequate enquiry would also attract revision proceedings. 7. We now proceed to deal with the relevant factual matrix. It is an admitted fact that these assessees’ had received all their consideration money in cash only in furtherance to the sale agreement dt.01.04.2011 culminating to sale deed dt.14.11.2013. There

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

263 by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to the effect that inadequate enquiry would also attract revision proceedings. 7. We now proceed to deal with the relevant factual matrix. It is an admitted fact that these assessees’ had received all their consideration money in cash only in furtherance to the sale agreement dt.01.04.2011 culminating to sale deed dt.14.11.2013. There

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

263 by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to the effect that inadequate enquiry would also attract revision proceedings. 7. We now proceed to deal with the relevant factual matrix. It is an admitted fact that these assessees’ had received all their consideration money in cash only in furtherance to the sale agreement dt.01.04.2011 culminating to sale deed dt.14.11.2013. There

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 by Ld, CIT, we are convinced that the orders of A.O. are not either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, since the issues

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

263 of the Act.” 31. In the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., [374 ITR 645] it was held that if there was no incriminating material found during the search then the Tribunal was right in holding that the power u/s. 153A being not expected to be exercised routinely, should be exercised if the search revealed