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

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

42 residential villas. It was also agreed upon between the parties that the developed area will be shared between the land owners and developer in 50:50 ratio. The assessee was owner of the land admeasuring 0.37 guntas. The Assessing Officer assessed the capital gain for ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 10 the A.Y. 2015-16 at Rs.82,84,130/- by considering

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

42 residential villas. It was also agreed upon between the parties that the developed area will be shared between the land owners and developer in 50:50 ratio. The assessee was owner of the land admeasuring 0.37 guntas. The Assessing Officer assessed the capital gain for ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 10 the A.Y. 2015-16 at Rs.82,84,130/- by considering

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" in the impugned assessment years in the absence of complete details. Suffice to say that for analyzing the issue in respect of jurisdiction under section 263 by Ld, CIT, we are convinced that the orders of A.O. are not either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, since the issues

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 24 of the Income Tax Act. As per provisions, if the assessee has not realized any rent, the same will be reduced from the ALV and lower ALV will be declared. Further the quantum of unrealized rent cannot be more than the ALV declared in the current year.” 8.1. Thereafter, ld. AR has drawn our attention to Para

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

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us". In the case before us, the assessee had admittedly completed four buildings i.e. G, H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits

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

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us". In the case before us, the assessee had admittedly completed four buildings i.e. G, H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits

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

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us". In the case before us, the assessee had admittedly completed four buildings i.e. G, H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits

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

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

TARA CHAND 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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

42,92,500/- in cash or adjusted against the interest payable to P. Ganeswara Rao. Therefore, assessed double amount of consideration as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 15.2. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that although the agreement was entered into by fixing sale agreement

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

house” as provided in section 54F of the Act, therefore, no income was liable to be brought to tax in his hands under the head “Capital gains”. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was not raised by the assessee in his original return of income or the revised