ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 54F of the Act, on the ground that, the assessee has not invested the unutilized portion of capital gain in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme and further the construction of new residential house property was not completed within 3

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

54F of the Act, specifically\nin the backdrop of the fact that the registration of the sale deed of\nthe said new residential property was executed on 01.12.2021.\n8. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 143(3)\nr.w Section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 29.09.2024, i.e., on the matter\nhaving been set aside by the Tribunal

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.:

3) CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) FACTS During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had shown certain long-term capital gain on sale of a plot of land and claimed exemption under section 54F on account of purchase of new house property

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

Bench: Us:

3 years after sale of house property, constructed a residential house to be eligible for exemption U/s. 54 or the capital gains arising from the sale of house property, where section 54(2) stipulates that if the amount of capital gains has not been utilized within a year, it has to be deposited in a notified capital gains account

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 clearly restricts the exemption to sale proceedings of one asset for investment in one residential house. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in allowing the exemption claimed u/s.54F without considering and appreciating the fact that when the nature of two properties

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

property pursuant to the JDA. The appellant has sold 3 flats received pursuant to the JDA within 3 years from the date of acquisition and against this sale consideration, claimed deduction under section 54F on incorrect facts. Further, the subsequent claim with regard to deduction under section 54F of the Act on the original sale of the asset is beyond

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

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

house” as provided in section 54F of the Act, therefore, no income was liable to be brought to tax in his hands under the head “Capital gains”. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was not raised by the assessee in his original return of income or the revised

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

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

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

houses owned by the Appellant on the date of transfer of the original asset, and thereby denying the exemption under Section 54F claimed by the Appellant on transfer of the original asset. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the order of the Ld. AO, wherein the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate

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

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

3 are dismissed. 8. Alternate claim of Deduction u/s 54F: Alternatively the assessee claimed deductions is] s 54 F of the LT. Act. It is pertinent to mention here th.at assessee is having more than one house as on the date of transfer of the original asset. The 7 Bollineni Krishna Kumari assessee herself admitted income from house property from

GUNDALA MAHENDER,,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for deciding the said issue afresh after conducting necessary enquiry and directed the assessee to produce necessary evidence to show that the property constructed was a residential house, on the ground that the authorities below did not make any attempt

GUNDALA SARVOTTAM RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for deciding the said issue afresh after conducting necessary enquiry and directed the assessee to produce necessary evidence to show that the property constructed was a residential house, on the ground that the authorities below did not make any attempt

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SHRI IENENI SRIPATHIRAO L/R IENENI SHASHIKANT, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Late Shri Ieneni Income Tax, Sripathirao Circle – 11(1), L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad. H.No.5-2-41/20, Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan : Beeps2654P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 16.07.2019, In Case No.0060/2018-19/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

house’ even before the amendment to Section 54F.” 3. Both the learned representatives invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion accepting the assessee’s impugned section 54F deduction of the claim as under : “6. Decision: The appellant has transferred a property

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 (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement of sale, the purchaser has paid an amount of Rs3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores and five lakhs only) towards earnest /advance sale consideration in favour of the vendor/developer of the second part as under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. IQBAL ALI KHAN , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505 /Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asstt. Cit Vs. Shri Iqbal Ali Khan, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpi8951P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

section 54F of the Act within the period stipulated in the Act. Though the definition of residential house has not been given under the Act, however, the judicial precedents with respect to the residential house and definition of the residential house as available in various dictionaries makes it abundantly clear that the residential house is a “house constructed