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

30-01-2015, the assessee purchased a new residential property for a consideration of Rs.3,39,66,000/-. The assessee used the sale proceeds of Rs.2,28,38,880/- of the previously sold property partly for the payment towards the acquisition of the new property. Thus, the assessee claimed exemption u/s.54F of the entire amount of capital gains arising from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house and hence, he claimed deduction of Rs.3,22,36,779/- u/s 54 of the Act. On perusal of the entire record and the replies submitted by the assessee, Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 54F in as much as the net consideration

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

30-09-2016, declaring total income of Rs.33,94,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement “hereinafter referred to as the “JDA” on 26-04-2012 with M/s LAL Constructions and received three flats measuring 4240 sq. ft. from

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 294 of the Act. 11. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to delete the arbitrary additions made and upheld by the lower authorities. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 24.07.2017, declaring

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

House Property’ after claiming the standard deduction of 30% and the interest under section 24(b) of the Act, and since

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

House Property’ after claiming the standard deduction of 30% and the interest under section 24(b) of the Act, and since

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

House Property’ after claiming the standard deduction of 30% and the interest under section 24(b) of the Act, and since

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

House Property’ after claiming the standard deduction of 30% and the interest under section 24(b) of the Act, and since

MAHMOOD HUSSAIN SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

house property for Rs. 5,39,579/- and addition of Rs. 2,37,92,244/- towards difference in capital account of the proprietor, addition of Rs. 97,76,424/- under the head ‘income from capital gains’ towards difference between sale consideration as per the registered sale deed and fair market value of the property, as per the provisions of Section

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

house, by an individual or Hindu Undivided Family out of the sale proceeds earned by disposing of any long term capital asset. 12.3 Legal precedents u/s 54F which is an analogous section, hold that the fact of utilization of sale proceeds in property, though not registered during the specified period would qualify for the benefit of reinvestment.-- 12.4 For availing

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

house property (iii) Long Term Capital Gains (iv) Short Term Capital Gains (v) Income from other sources Hence, the provisions of Section 28(iv) cannot be invoked in the appellant's case. This view is supported by the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhavanagar Bone and Fertiliser Company Ltd (166 ITR 316) and followed by ITAT

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

property. According to the development agreement, the assesse was entitled to 48% of the super built-up area in the form of four residential flats. The Hon’ble High Court had held that the four residential flats constitute “a residential house” for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act. Also, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble High

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

30,62,687/-. The assessee was confronted with those loose sheets and bills and was asked to explain the source of purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, has clearly stated that the jewellery was given by Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters

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

30,62,687/-. The assessee was confronted with those loose sheets and bills and was asked to explain the source of purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, has clearly stated that the jewellery was given by Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters

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

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

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

30,62,687/-. The assessee was confronted with those loose sheets and bills and was asked to explain the source of purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, has clearly stated that the jewellery was given by Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters

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

30,62,687/-. The assessee was confronted with those loose sheets and bills and was asked to explain the source of purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, has clearly stated that the jewellery was given by Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters

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

30,62,687/-. The assessee was confronted with those loose sheets and bills and was asked to explain the source of purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, has clearly stated that the jewellery was given by Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters

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

30,62,687/-. The assessee was confronted with those loose sheets and bills and was asked to explain the source of purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, has clearly stated that the jewellery was given by Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters