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

50,000/- as cost incurred for transfer.\n.xxxx.\n6. This brings us to the other question whether the assessee had\n\"purchased\" the second property and, therefore, payment made of\nRs.37,86,273/- was entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the\nAct. Section 54 of the Act as applicable to assessment year 2006-07 reads\nas under

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

50. As per clause 11.1, it is again specified that the owners have granted license to the developer to enter upon the schedule property for the purpose of development. For the sake of completeness, clause nos.11.1 to 11.3 are reproduced as under: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 12 12. The intention of the parties was clearly reduced in writing under these clauses

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

50. As per clause 11.1, it is again specified that the owners have granted license to the developer to enter upon the schedule property for the purpose of development. For the sake of completeness, clause nos.11.1 to 11.3 are reproduced as under: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 12 12. The intention of the parties was clearly reduced in writing under these clauses

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

property (“Original Residential House”) vide registered sale deed dated 14.12.2017 for a total consideration of Rs.3,70,00,000/-. The long-term capital gain on the said transfer was computed at Rs.1,33,83,234/-, out of which the assessee’s share at 50% worked out to Rs.66,91,617/-. The assessee claimed deduction of the entire long term capital

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

section 69 of the Act\namounting to Rs.2,62,000/- without considering the submissions\nmade by the assessee.\n10A) The learned CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that the\nAssessee has purchased a house property for 31,50

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

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

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

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- 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

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:

50,000/- shares of the Company were allotted to the assessee at the face value of Rs.10/- per share, whereas at the same time the shares were allotted at a premium of Rs.350/- per share to M/s. Cornerstone Property Investment Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) having held that the shares so allotted to the assessee at face value

VAZHRAA NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. I.T.O. CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house. On account of such litigation, the assessee had to make various compliances before the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (“HMDA”), Telangana Real Estate Regulation Authority (“TSRERA”) and civil court. On account of these litigations, the filing of appeal before the ITAT got delayed. 2.1 Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the reasons for delay given

VENKATESH BOMMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.62/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Venkatesh Bomma Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan:Afhpb6561K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/Order

section 50C of the Act without allowing deduction towards the cost of acquisition of the property in absence of necessary details. 4. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee has filed objection before the DRP-1 Bengaluru. Before the DRP, the assessee has furnished certain additional evidences including copy of the sale deed dated 4.12.2023 for transfer of property, copy

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