EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961/37Aof-the WT Act-1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place of mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Shri Satendra Sharma (Security incharge) who was present in the said place at the time and after-reading

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

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

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

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

275 to 306 of the paper book). While referring to the said decision of the Kolkata Bench (supra), the Ld AR has drawn our attention to Ground No.6 of that appeal wherein the issue has been captured as under: 8 ITA (TP) 104/Hyd/2022 Sanghi Industries Limited “6. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 80IA (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

275 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 78,445 --------------- Taxable Long Term Capital Gains 43,61,830 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee has raised grounds that the capital gains are not taxable in the individual hands, not taxable in the year of assessment, the computation was not correct as the value of property of assessee was also taken as sale

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

275 are violated. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the 7 above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.” 3. The assessees before us transferred an immovable property vide sale deed dated 29.07.2016 for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,21,000/- having

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 80IA (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

PROPERTY) in the case of Harikishore Reddy Gavireddygari (ITA 4/HYD/2023). The agreement of sale in the case of all the villa owners including the appellant mentioned the minimum (in one or two case certain less things were mentioned but mostly this was the general nature of work description) of the following specifications ( page No.52 of 121 - (SCHEDULE “D” PROPERTY

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

PROPERTY) in the case of Harikishore Reddy Gavireddygari (ITA 4/HYD/2023). The agreement of sale in the case of all the villa owners including the appellant mentioned the minimum (in one or two case certain less things were mentioned but mostly this was the general nature of work description) of the following specifications ( page No.52 of 121 - (SCHEDULE “D” PROPERTY

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

PROPERTY) in the case of Harikishore Reddy Gavireddygari (ITA 4/HYD/2023). The agreement of sale in the case of all the villa owners including the appellant mentioned the minimum (in one or two case certain less things were mentioned but mostly this was the general nature of work description) of the following specifications ( page No.52 of 121 - (SCHEDULE “D” PROPERTY

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

PROPERTY) in the case of Harikishore Reddy Gavireddygari (ITA 4/HYD/2023). The agreement of sale in the case of all the villa owners including the appellant mentioned the minimum (in one or two case certain less things were mentioned but mostly this was the general nature of work description) of the following specifications ( page No.52 of 121 - (SCHEDULE “D” PROPERTY