IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

property, inspite of a favorable recommendation from the Assessing Officer. 3. The learned Commissioner further erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.16,08,014/- which is claimed as business expenditure as the loan taken from SBI, Balanagar branch was utilized for the purpose of business, Page 1 of 11 ITA No 338 of 2016 Impact Metals Ltd Medak

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next to PG College. Secunderabad-500 026. PAN : AANFV0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the order passed

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

274 has categorically held as follows: - “……..that from a reading of sub-section (2) of section 54 of the Act it is clear that only section 139 has been mentioned therein in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gains on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return

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

house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim of the assessee, the AO made field enquiries through an Inspector and found that the claim of the assessee is not proper and declined to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The action

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

house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim of the assessee, the AO made field enquiries through an Inspector and found that the claim of the assessee is not proper and declined to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The action

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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

property were to be\nallowed only to the extent the same were made by him before the\n“due date” for filing of his return of income. We say so, for the\nreason that Section 54F of the Act, inter alia, contemplates the\nutilization of the \"net consideration" towards the purchase or\nconstruction of the new house before the “date

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)

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 AO has mentioned the main

JYOTHI BHANOTH ,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2014-15 Jyothi Bhanoth, Vs. Acit, Khammam. Circle-1, Pan: Anopb 4718 R Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

house property, income from other sources and capital gains, filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 3/2/2015 admitting total income of Rs. 6,91,130/-. Initially, the return of income was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny for verification of financial transactions as the assessee had purchased

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA HUF ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

274/- and ‘income from house property’ of Rs.1,26,000 and claimed chapter VIA deduction of Rs.94,120/-. 3. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer had received information from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that the assessee has purchased 70,000 shares of the following penny scripts for a total value of Rs.12,77,500/- during the financial year 2010-11 relevant

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

274 r.w.s 271D and also the ICIT has not issued a show cause notice, according an opportunity to the assessee, therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the learned CIT erred in confirming penalty order u/s 271D of the IT Act. 6. The learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the JCIT, levying penalty

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.:

Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No. 243/VIZ/2018, dated 25/01/2019) wherein the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (I.T.T.A. No.664 of 2016) dated 13.07.2017 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

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

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

274 read with section 270A of the Act, consequent to the above adjustment. 4.2 The Appellant submits that each ground of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 4.3 The Appellant desires to leave to amend, alter or to add, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before or during

ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUBRAHMANYAM KOTIKALAPUDI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Subrahmanyam Kotikalapudi, Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

house properties, Keeping in mind the above object behind the insertion of section 54F and considering the fact that the assessee was not at fault in not depositing the amount before 31-8- 1995, we hold that the deposit made on 1-9-1995 satisfies the condition laid down in section 54F of the Act." Since no contrary decision

SOUTHERN REALTORS & TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Realtors & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Towers Private Limited Tax, Circle 3 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs1895B (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from other sources, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring an income of Rs.1,81,67,710/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of Rs.2,22,750 to the returned income. Subsequently, the CIT perused the assessment records by invoking the provisions

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

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

274 of 2013 dated 23/09/2013 is reproduced herein below for reference:- “The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Chief Justice Sri K. J. Sengupta) This Public Interest Litigation has been taken out to challenge Government order No. 157 dated 30/3/2013 by which the Government has empowered the Commissioner and inspector General of Registration and Stamps to implement