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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act comes into operation and it will be considered as transfer of property in the FY 2007-08 itself. The arguments of the AR that the possession of the property was not given to Smt. N. Jayasree and Sri N. Vishnu Vardhan is erroneous and misreading. 8.2 In Page No.4 of ASCIPOA, it was stated

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

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

house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this\nsection referred to as the new asset), the difference between the\namount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be\ncharged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and\nfor the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any\ncapital gain arising

MANOHAR REDDY CHERUKU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Page 2 of 8 ITA No 1625 of 2025 Manohar Reddy Cheruku assessment year 2016–17 on 31.03.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.5,98,860/-. 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

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) ; or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in. a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

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

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief under section 54 even if such independent units were on different floors. The decision in Ms.Suseela M.Jhaveri's case (supra) holding that only one residential house should be given the relief under section 54 does

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

house, therefore, no adverse inferences were liable to be drawn as regards his claim of exemption raised u/s 54F of the Act. Elaborating further, it was the assessee's claim that though as per the terms of the original “agreement to purchase” a Villa No. 48 was allotted to him by the builder, but thereafter due to some internal problems

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PAGIDI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Janardhan Reddy, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aikpp 2277 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Ramachandra Central Circle-2(4), Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalpp 5927 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

houses. Therefore, the essential component of section 53A of the TP Act has not been complied with. (7) The ITAT Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sudha Giri vs. ITO in ITA No. 1578/Hyd/2014 vide its order dated 31/07/2015 relying in the decision of the Hyderabad Benches viz., (i) M/s. Binjusaria Properties

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PAGIDI JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Janardhan Reddy, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aikpp 2277 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Pagidi Ramachandra Central Circle-2(4), Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalpp 5927 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

houses. Therefore, the essential component of section 53A of the TP Act has not been complied with. (7) The ITAT Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sudha Giri vs. ITO in ITA No. 1578/Hyd/2014 vide its order dated 31/07/2015 relying in the decision of the Hyderabad Benches viz., (i) M/s. Binjusaria Properties