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

43 (SC). Our submission: a. It is respectfully submitted, that the Ld. DR is misinterpreting the provisions of sub-section 5 of section 80-IA of the Act. The scope of section 80-IA(5) of the Act is limited only to the determination of the quantum of deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act. And that provisions

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:

43 ITA No 974 of 2017 Prakash Nimmagadda between the appellant and the three companies. As seen from the assessment record, the return of income of the appellant for the AY 2008-09 Consists of the following heads of income: (i)) Salary Income (ii) Income from house property (iii) Long Term Capital Gains (iv) Short Term Capital Gains (v) Income

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

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

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

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

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

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

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

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

INDUMATI CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house took place within the time schedule and provisions of section 54 were not complied with, learned Assessing Officer added the capital gains on the sale of old property to the income of the assessees. 5. In the case of Shri Diwakar Reddy, on verification of his bank accounts, learned Assessing Officer found that there were deposits to the tune

DIWAKAR REDDY CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house took place within the time schedule and provisions of section 54 were not complied with, learned Assessing Officer added the capital gains on the sale of old property to the income of the assessees. 5. In the case of Shri Diwakar Reddy, on verification of his bank accounts, learned Assessing Officer found that there were deposits to the tune

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

GRANDEUR HOMES PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangrandeur Homes P Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Secunderabad Income Tax, Circle 2(2) Pan: Aaccg7612F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahm.) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (Supra) and also the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (Supra) to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

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

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 value and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act [Act]. Ld.CIT

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

43 of the paper book, wherein, MOU has\nbeen executed by the assessee with the litigants and found that the\nassessee has paid total amount of Rs.11 lakhs to the litigants.\nTherefore, in our considered opinion, the payment made by the\nassessee is eligible for deduction from the sale consideration of land.\nFurther, as we have found that, there

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

43,030/-. Thereafter, the original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 24-12-2018, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.26,23,490/-. 6. As discernible from the record, the AO, based on the fact that the Long-Term Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) was computed

SUJATHA ATCHUTANI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Sujatha Atchutani, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abbpa 8757E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri M. Naga Deepak Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

house property of Rs. 30,800/- to the returned income of the assessee of Rs. 24,62,710/- and brought it to tax. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who accepted the assessee’s contention that the assessee has inherited the property at Guntur and the gain on sale of such property is LTCG