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

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

house property’ and eligible deductions there from should be allowed under section 24 of the Act. In the alternative, ld.counsel for assessee also submitted that 50

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. The Assessing Officer noted that though all the payments were made by the assessee, the residential house was purchased jointly in the names of the assessee and his wife. The Assessing Officer, then referred to section 54F only to the extent of his right in the new residential house purchased jointly with his wife and allowed only 50

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

50,55,252 B. Income from house property 15,49,369 C. Income from STCG 10,44,14,475 D. Income from other sources 17,65,05,274 Gross Total income (A+B+C+D) 19,74,13,866 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

50,55,252 B. Income from house property 15,49,369 C. Income from STCG 10,44,14,475 D. Income from other sources 17,65,05,274 Gross Total income (A+B+C+D) 19,74,13,866 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

house property of Rs.1,02,945/-, long term capital gain of Rs.3,60,837/- and income from other sources of Rs.25,155/- and agricultural income of Rs.90,000/-. The AO finalized the assessment proceedings and has calculated the long term capital gains at Rs.63,55,216 by disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 54 of the I.T.Act. 3. None

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. 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

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

CHALLA SATISH REDDY HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 46/Hyd/2020 ( िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 )

house property accordingly, as was followed in this case by the Ld. CIT(A) for the AY.2012-13. We order so and accordingly allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. 12. Now coming to the issue relating to the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 54EC of the Act to the tune of Rs.100 Lakhs invested

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

section 69 of the Act amounting to Rs.2,62,000/- without considering the submissions made by the assessee. 10A) The learned CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that the Assessee has purchased a house property for 31,50

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

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -8(1) , HYDERABAD vs. THIRUPALAPPA CHOWDARY NAGELI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Shri Thirupalappa Circle 8(1) Chowdary Nageli, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adbpn9171H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohammed Afzal, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-8, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal 1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition U/ 68 Of Rs.40,50,000/- Under The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Failed To Establish With Documentary Evidences That The Rental Receipts Received In Puttaparthi Were Deposited In Cash In Hyderabad Which Is Far Of Place”.

50,000/for the acquisition of house property. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- warranted under section 69B. Hence

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 22 of the I.T. Act, the income received on the building and land appurtenant thereto, is to be treated as “income from house property”. Therefore, the AO treated it as income from house property and observing that only the expenditure mentioned u/s 24 is to be allowed, the AO observed that the interest portion of Rs.16

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

house' indicates the nature of property to be acquired and not a number of properties. The appellant also placed reliance on the decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao [365 ITR 249](2013) wherein it was held that the elements of the factual position and the year in which agreement was entered into were relevant

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

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

50,000/- each aggregating to Rs. 12,10,00,000/- towards the sale consideration for acquiring their house property. It was further revealed that the assessee company had not deducted tax at source from the above stated NRIs with respect to the payment made for the purchase of their residential house. Therefore, the Ld. DIT (International Taxation) opined that

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