INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

house property on or before the due date of filing the return of income provided under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer never disputed the fact of satisfying the conditions provided under section 54F of the Act. However, denied the exemption only on technical grounds of not satisfying certain venial breach of negative conditions, even though

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 80-O, is of no help to the appellant.” 2.2 Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA from the income from house property as claimed. Thus, we dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee on this issue.” 3. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the above-mentioned decision and in accordance with “The Rule

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 80-O, is of no help to the appellant.” 2.2 Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA from the income from house property as claimed. Thus, we dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee on this issue.” 3. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the above-mentioned decision and in accordance with “The Rule

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 property, which were pledged with bank for obtaining loan by the company. These properties were sold by bank arid the sale proceeds were appropriated by bank to square off the loans of the company. The net consideration in this case is the sale amount collected by bank. Thus the net consideration on the sale of the original assets stands

VEENA INDUSTRIES, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,WARD-11(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

property which has in turn sold the land, free from all encumbrances, to the partners - who are referred to the party of the second part - for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, the land could be said to have been purchased only on 07.08.1990. 13. He referred to the provisions of section 49(1) and section

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

MOHMOODA BEGUM,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

MOHMOODA BEGUM,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-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 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

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

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

MOHAMED 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 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

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

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

49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that liability to tax has already occurred in the assessment year, 2010-11 and that taxing the same again in the year under consideration tantamounts to double taxation. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly admitted capital