KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

property were to be\nallowed only to the extent the same were made by him before the\n“due date” for filing of his return of income. We say so, for the\nreason that Section 54F of the Act, inter alia, contemplates the\nutilization of the \"net consideration" towards the purchase or\nconstruction of the new house before the “date

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

housing as well as infrastructure projects being set up. 2.11 In view of the above observations, the AO concluded comprehensively that the land sold by the assessee and family members is a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The AO further concluded that the said lands are within the limits of GHMC

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

54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB] or Chapter VI-A exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

property in ITR is less than sale consideration reported in Form 26QB(Form 26QB and Schedule CG of ITR), and (2) large deduction claimed under section 54B, 54C, 54G and 54GA (schedule CG of ITR). 11. Learned Assessing Officer by way of notice dated 04/07/2017 to the assessee, requiring details as to the sale consideration for computing the capital gains

DAPPU RAMULU (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section

KONDE MALLESH(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section

KONDE ANJAIAH (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section

DAPPU NARASIMHA (HUF), RR DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section

SRI KANDADA BABU RAO, R.R. DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section

SRI JILAKARA SANDAIAH, R.R. DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section