ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 139(1) of the Act, including amounts unutilized for the assessee being TDS deducted by the purchaser of the property on sale consideration should be allowed as deduction, as if the assessee has spent the amount for construction of house property or invested in Capital Gain 5

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the following points in brief: i. Main object clause of Memorandum of Association: It is stated that the primary object of the assessee is to construct and develop the property but not to lease them out for earning rental income and therefore, the business of assessee is not letting out of the properties

CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

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

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the following points in brief: i. Main object clause of Memorandum of Association: It is stated that the primary object of the assessee is to construct and develop the property but not to lease them out for earning rental income and therefore, the business of assessee is not letting out of the properties

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

house property within the time provided in section 54, therefore, erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer where the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- is disallowed with an incorrect assumption. 5

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

5) would become falsified and would stand to be nullified. 11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with

SATYA SAYEE BABU DIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1268/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2022-23) Satya Sayee Babu Divi, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Ayeps7457B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Satya Sayee Babu Divi, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25/06/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adding Rs. 1,23,984/- to the total income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property by considering Bhavya Sri Arcade- H.No. 7-1-01/2, No.301 Dharma Karam Road Ameerpet, Hyderabad as deemed let-out. However, the assessee inadvertently considered the said property as vacant

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

5(1),\nHyderabad.\nVs.\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\nSanjay Chowdary Gaddipati,\nR/o. Shaikpet,\nHyderabad.\nPAN : AVIPS9257L\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nकरदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee\nRepresented by\nराजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व / Department\nRepresented by\nसुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि / Date of\nConclusion of Hearing\nघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement\n:\nShri J.J.Varun, CA.\nDr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R.\n09.06.2025\n12.06.2025\nORDER\nप्रति रवीश सूद

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 54F of the Act towards capital gain derived from transfer of unquoted equity shares of two companies for investing part of sale consideration for purchase/construction of new residential house property. 5

GARIKAPATI RAGHURAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148 of the Act, despite the request made by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the income from the property derived from the provision of amenities to the tenants of the property is assessable under the head "income from business". ADDITIONAL GROUND: 3(b) The learned

SURENDRA BABU SABBINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

section 263 proceedings, the AO obtained details of properties owned by the assessee and noticed that out of seven properties, two properties are not residential but the remaining five properties namely the house at Sai Praveen Kuteer, Flat No.1,4 and 204 at Sai Lakshmi Nilayam, Sherilingampalli at Hyderabad and Swastik Apartment at Siliguri are residential units and therefore

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 I T Act. During the relevant period the assessee was not the owner of the residential property although he had full control over the property. Before the AO, the appellant has stated that his father is free to gift this property to any other person. Thus, I find that that the assessee has hypothetically attempted

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

property towards the purchase of another residential house within the stipulated period as per Section 54 of the Act, she would be eligible for exemption U/s. 54 of the Act and LTCG would not be attracted. For the aforesaid reasons it was submitted that the assessee had refrained from filing her return of income. The assessee also relied on certain

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

HIMA BINDU PUTTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

section 24 of the Act. In the alternative, ld.counsel for assessee also submitted that 50% of the house may be treated as self-occupied property and income from house property be recomputed accordingly. 4. Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee had no source of income and it is her husband

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

properties only. As per the provisions of section 54 F of the LT. Act deduction is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. Thus, the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/ s 54F. 5

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

section 548. Ruen investment made in purchasing\na plot of land for the purpose of construction of a residential house\nhas been held to be an investment satisfying the conditions of\nsection 54P. Though there cannot be any dispute with regard to\nthe above said proposition of law, the assessee is required to prove\nthe actual date of investment