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

47)(v) of the Act, reference has been made to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which incorporates the doctrine of equity of part performance of contract. Section 53A introduces in limited form the doctrine of equity of part performance in India where requirements mentioned in the provisions are satisfied (see Ramachandrayya vs. Satyanarayana11). Section

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

47)(v) of the Act, reference has been made to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which incorporates the doctrine of equity of part performance of contract. Section 53A introduces in limited form the doctrine of equity of part performance in India where requirements mentioned in the provisions are satisfied (see Ramachandrayya vs. Satyanarayana11). Section

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

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

section 54F of the Act, if he had more than one residential house in his name before investing. In the present case, the assessee has shown the house property income from two houses, namely, oneself occupied (at Door No.3-6-305/43,43/1, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad) and one let out (at Sy.No.52 & 53, Saheb Nagar, Khurd Village, LB Nagar, Hyderabad). However

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016–17 on 16.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,85,350/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case of the assessee along with M/s Moksha Infracon Private Limited ( “the developer

MANOHAR REDDY CHERUKU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Page 2 of 8 ITA No 1625 of 2025 Manohar Reddy Cheruku assessment year 2016–17 on 31.03.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.5,98,860/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

47), which defines the term transfer in relation to a capital asset. In the\nlight of the factual matrix, it was observed that the intention\nbehind Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his\nresidential house and had purchased another residential house within\ntwo years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief under section 54 even if such independent units were on different floors. The decision in Ms.Suseela M.Jhaveri's case (supra) holding that only one residential house should be given the relief under section 54 does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PAGIDI JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Janardhan Reddy, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aikpp 2277 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Ramachandra Central Circle-2(4), Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalpp 5927 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 2(47) of the IT Act read with 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the LTCG of Rs. 3,94,24,000/- in the case of each of the assessees. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition because of the following reasons. (1) Even on the date of assessment order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PAGIDI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Janardhan Reddy, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aikpp 2277 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Ramachandra Central Circle-2(4), Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalpp 5927 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 2(47) of the IT Act read with 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the LTCG of Rs. 3,94,24,000/- in the case of each of the assessees. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition because of the following reasons. (1) Even on the date of assessment order

DCIT,CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. CLEAN CITY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc4799H Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

Property Act, at the cost of repetition, is only for the purpose of transfer under section 2(47) which, in turn, is relevant, as it states in so many words by using the expression “transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes”, only for the purposes of capital assets under the Income Tax Act. An asset included in the stock

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

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

house. Even with regard to the alleged buying of land, the appellant claimed it at Rs.37.50 lakhs as per the AFS dated 30.04.2008 where as it is only for Rs.6 lakhs as per the Sale Deed. The appellant did not produce the said AFS dated 14.02.2008, though he claimed Rs. 37.50 lakhs as the purchase consideration. It Is not hard