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

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, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

house property on or before the due date provided under section 139(1) for filing of return of income and the assessee had made investment in purchase of property only on 18.10.2022 and also made investment in capital gains deposit account scheme on 28.10.2022 beyond the due date prescribed under the Act and in view of provisions of section 54F

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

property,\nit would not disentitle her from claiming deduction under Section\n54F of the Act. We say so, for the reason that the word ‘purchase'\nas used in sub-section (2) of Section 54F is not restricted or\nconfined to a registered sale deed or even to possession, but has a\nwider connotation. We concur with the Ld. CIT(Appeals

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

Section 54F(1) and 54F(4) shows that it speaks of the use of net consideration received on the sale of original asset in the purchase of new asset. In the instant case, the original assets were the assessee's house property

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1,00,000/- housing loan sanctioned on 24/06/2015 towards purchase of property including an amount of Rs. 51,70,224/- out of his personal savings. Therefore, it was submitted that the appellant utilized the entire consideration of Rs. 72,54,000/- for the purchase of property and hence, was eligible for deduction U/s. 54F. In the assessment order

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.:

house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Section 54F is the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the tax-payer and deduction should not be denied on hyper-technical ground. The word 'assessee' must be given wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There

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.:

house in India within the time prescribed under Section 54(1), the deduction is bound to be granted without reference to Section 54(2), which compliance in my considered view, would come into operation only in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement under Section 54(1). Mere noncompliance of a procedural

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

54F is a beneficial provision and is applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a new capital asset in the form of a residential house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision , then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE V.Favourite Industries

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

House Property at D.No. 3-6-305/43, 431 L, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. Plot at Saheb Nagar, Kurd Village, LB Nagar, Hyderabad. It is clear that the assessee had fulfilled the condition of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had only one residential property (S. No. 1

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

house property), one year before the date of transfer or within two years from the date of transfer of original asset. In other words, in order to get deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the assessee shall invest sale consideration on or before 25-04-2014. 9 10. In the present case, the appellant has entered into sale agreement

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

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

property. According to the development agreement, the assesse was entitled to 48% of the super built-up area in the form of four residential flats. The Hon’ble High Court had held that the four residential flats constitute “a residential house” for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act. Also, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble High

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

House Property within the stipulated period stipulated under the Act in order to entitle the vendors the claim of the deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. (vi) The compliance of the entire provisions of section 54F of the Act enabling the vendors to claim the deduction U/s. 54F of the Act is not brought on record before the Ld. Revenue

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, by an individual or Hindu Undivided Family out of the sale proceeds earned by disposing of any long term capital asset. 12.3 Legal precedents u/s 54F which is an analogous section, hold that the fact of utilization of sale proceeds in property, though not registered during the specified period would qualify for the benefit of reinvestment.-- 12.4 For availing

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

1. “The order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies himself liable to assessed on a total income of Rs.7,73,80,535/-, as against the returned income of Rs.5

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

house property that was received by him from the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers, Nizamabad, claimed the deduction of the entire amount of capital gain under section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee had not offered any capital gain for tax on the transfer of 1041.34 sq yds of land to the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers

RADHIKA KURRA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Radhika Kurra, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), Pan – Aedpk 3506Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

section 54F of the Act. 1.4 In this regard appellant would respectfully submit that, at the time of sale of the property, appellant was not in possession of more than one residential house as the villas handed over to appellant by Ambience Properties Limited are not in habitable condition and that they are semi-finished villas. This is evident from

ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUBRAHMANYAM KOTIKALAPUDI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Subrahmanyam Kotikalapudi, Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

house properties, Keeping in mind the above object behind the insertion of section 54F and considering the fact that the assessee was not at fault in not depositing the amount before 31-8- 1995, we hold that the deposit made on 1