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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

5. The Memorandum of Association of the appellant-company which is placed on record mentions main objects as well as incidental or ancillary objects in clause III. (A) and (B) respectively. The main object of the appellant company is to acquire and hold the properties known as “Chennai House” and “Firhavin Estate” both in Chennai and to let out those

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

section 54F of the Act. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee and upheld the additions made by the AO towards capital gain. 5 5. Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A., submitted that the ld.CIT

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

5. The NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by AO amounting to Rs.35,13,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank account as unexplained income even though the appellant has submitted a cash flow statement explaining the fact that the 3 Gowri Shankar Gupta aforesaid amount emanated from the cash in hand available with the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

house (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement of sale, the purchaser has paid an amount of Rs3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores and five lakhs only) towards earnest /advance sale consideration in favour of the vendor/developer of the second part as under

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

House Property” (IFHP), but realizing that there is a mistake, started taking the plea before the learned CIT(A) to the effect that the income from the lease rentals is taxable under the head “Profits and Gains from Business or Profession” (PGBP). Learned CIT(A), however, rejected such a plea of the assessee holding that there is no such object