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

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

house property: 8.4 In this context, it is important to understand the principle of mutuality before adjudicating the issue on hand. It is well settled principle of law that, in order to fulfil the requirement of mutuality, a mutual association has to establish the crucial criteria that there is identity between contributors and participators / recipients to the fund i.e. there

KAMAL ENTERPRISES AND NEW LIFE HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house property to claim 30% standard deduction under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and also the depreciation on fixed assets on building and equipment for the entire year. 3. Since the assessee claimed depreciation on business assets, learned Assessing Officer treated the income of the assessee as income from business and initiated penalty proceedings under

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Shanta Sriram Infra & Vs. Dcit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs 4180 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 Order Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.:

property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : “WHEREAS in the course of the proceeding before

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Search & Seizure operations were conducted in the case of Arun Gupta on 14/12/2007. During the course of Search, it was observed that Sri Arun Gupta and his spouse Smt. Pushpa Gupta had jointly purchase a house property

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Search & Seizure operations were conducted in the case of Arun Gupta on 14/12/2007. During the course of Search, it was observed that Sri Arun Gupta and his spouse Smt. Pushpa Gupta had jointly purchase a house property

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Search & Seizure operations were conducted in the case of Arun Gupta on 14/12/2007. During the course of Search, it was observed that Sri Arun Gupta and his spouse Smt. Pushpa Gupta had jointly purchase a house property

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Search & Seizure operations were conducted in the case of Arun Gupta on 14/12/2007. During the course of Search, it was observed that Sri Arun Gupta and his spouse Smt. Pushpa Gupta had jointly purchase a house property

ARUN GUPTA HUF,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Years: 2005-06 Sri Arun Gupta (Huf), Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Aahha 7572 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Smt. K.J. Divya – Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2020 Order

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Search & Seizure operations were conducted in the case of Arun Gupta on 14/12/2007. During the course of Search, it was observed that Sri Arun Gupta and his spouse Smt. Pushpa Gupta had jointly purchased a house property

APSARA BHAVANASAI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Years: 2008-09 Apsara Bhavanasai, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Ahvpb 3872H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2019 O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 1, Hyderabad, Dated, 26/03/2018 For Ay 2008-09, Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

property, the assessee was having more than one residential house and the condition to allow the exemption u/s 54F was clarified in the Act and hence, the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Further, the AO observed that the assessee having the knowledge of having two residential houses from which rental income was offered

SUJATHA ATCHUTANI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Sujatha Atchutani, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abbpa 8757E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri M. Naga Deepak Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

house property of Rs. 30,800/- to the returned income of the assessee of Rs. 24,62,710/- and brought it to tax. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who accepted the assessee’s contention that the assessee has inherited the property at Guntur and the gain on sale of such property is LTCG

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 30/12/2009, which is placed on record

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 30/12/2009, which is placed on record

A.V.K. VISWANADHA RAJU,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

house property for an amount of Rs. 8,23,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 2.1 A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 23/10/2007, in which, it was found that the assessee had invested Rs. 8,23,000/- in the purchase of property which was not reflected in his return of income

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1461/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20)

271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the penalty order by observing that

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

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

271(SC) as the sad addition was made on the basis of rate per Page 21 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch ankanam/sale consideration mentioned in the seized agreement of sale. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary”. 22. Grounds

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

271(SC) as the sad addition was made on the basis of rate per Page 21 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch ankanam/sale consideration mentioned in the seized agreement of sale. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary”. 22. Grounds