RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property to his father, Sri Vijay kumar shah by way of gift settlement deed in doc.No.107 of 2014 executed on 27-10-2014. Immediately after this gift settlement i.e, within a gap of 7 days, the assessee sold one land property jointly held with his mother in Survey Nos.114 and115 situated at Gaganpahad village, Rajendernagar· Mandal, Rangareddy District

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this\nsection referred to as the new asset), the difference between the\namount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be\ncharged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and\nfor the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any\ncapital gain arising

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

27 owners of the land entered into JDA dated 11.07.2014 registered on 19.11.2014 thereby the owners agreed to pool their land for the purpose of development and the developer agreed to construct 42 residential villas. It was also agreed upon between the parties that the developed area will be shared between the land owners and developer in 50:50 ratio

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

27 owners of the land entered into JDA dated 11.07.2014 registered on 19.11.2014 thereby the owners agreed to pool their land for the purpose of development and the developer agreed to construct 42 residential villas. It was also agreed upon between the parties that the developed area will be shared between the land owners and developer in 50:50 ratio

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

27,053/-, on the basis of page No.91 of the document seized from the residences of Shri Sampat Raghupati Reddy, where certain jottings were recorded under club house expenses. The Assessing Officer had also made addition towards development expenses of Rs.1,64,94,500/- on the ground that the assessee has debited the development expenses in the P&L towards