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

section 80IA(1) of the Act, the NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. assessee need not to pay any tax on such income derived from eligible business but he is supposed to pay tax on the house property income of Rs.1 crore. On the other hand, if the argument of the assessee that income from eligible business of 1 crore

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

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

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

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

29. In the case of M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd (cited Supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that there is no definition of the expression "Housing Page 22 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Project" u/s 80IB of the Act and that said expression is defined under Explanation to section 80HHBA

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

29. In the case of M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd (cited Supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that there is no definition of the expression "Housing Page 22 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Project" u/s 80IB of the Act and that said expression is defined under Explanation to section 80HHBA

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

29. In the case of M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd (cited Supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that there is no definition of the expression "Housing Page 22 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Project" u/s 80IB of the Act and that said expression is defined under Explanation to section 80HHBA

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 and deduction u/s 80lA (4) is not allowable in respect of such income. c. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AD. vide order dated 12 September 2014. He further held that the appellant has failed to comply with the directions of the CSOT notification to locate 30 units in the industrial park. He also directed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

29-04-2016, for purchase of a plot for Rs. 1,34,000/- (Schedule A Property) along with Residential villa / house (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement of sale, the purchaser has paid an amount of Rs3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores and five

RATANLAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

section 54F are not fulfilled and therefore, by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F, the order of the Assessing Officer has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the order of the Assessing Officer is also very cryptic and the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny have not been addressed

CHANDRA DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

section 54F are not fulfilled and therefore, by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F, the order of the Assessing Officer has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the order of the Assessing Officer is also very cryptic and the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny have not been addressed

RAJESH KUMAR JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

section 54F are not fulfilled and therefore, by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F, the order of the Assessing Officer has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the order of the Assessing Officer is also very cryptic and the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny have not been addressed

MADHU DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

section 54F are not fulfilled and therefore, by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F, the order of the Assessing Officer has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the order of the Assessing Officer is also very cryptic and the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny have not been addressed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority