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)

6. The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 54F for Rs. 7,12,72,146/- without appreciating the fact that, the assessee has failed to prove purchase of new residential house property/construction of house property

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

Bench: Us:

6. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal reproducing Section 54 in its order found as follows: "A perusal of the above provision will show that it does not lay down that the construction of any house must be begun after the sale of the old residential house and that the sale proceeds of the old residential house must be used

SATYA SAYEE BABU DIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1268/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2022-23) Satya Sayee Babu Divi, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Ayeps7457B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Satya Sayee Babu Divi, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25/06/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

House Property” on the basis of notional/fair rental value in respect of various properties as under: Page 3 of 19 Satya Sayee Babu Divi Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,62,97,189/-. 4. Aggrieved with

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

6. Before us, the ld. DR filed written synopsis, which is as under: ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE: The main issue involved in this case is, in respect of income derived from eligible business, whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, from income computed under the heads “Income from house property”, “Capital gains”, and “Income from

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

6. Before us, the ld. DR filed written synopsis, which is as under: ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE: The main issue involved in this case is, in respect of income derived from eligible business, whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, from income computed under the heads “Income from house property”, “Capital gains”, and “Income from

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 54F of the Act on investment made in purchase of land because, the assessee has purchased 4153.57 square metres of land, however, constructed residential house only on 291.52 square metre, which means, the assessee has utilised roughly 6% of the land area for the purpose of construction of residential house property

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

properties at S.No.2 to 6 fall under the category of residential houses and therefore, the case of the assessee is hit by proviso (a)(i) of section

GARIKAPATI RAGHURAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148 of the Act, despite the request made by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the income from the property derived from the provision of amenities to the tenants of the property is assessable under the head "income from business". ADDITIONAL GROUND: 3(b) The learned

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

section 54F of the Act, if he had more than one residential house in his name before investing. In the present case, the assessee has shown the house property income from two houses, namely, oneself occupied (at Door No.3-6-305/43,43/1, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad) and one let out (at Sy.No.52 & 53, Saheb Nagar, Khurd Village, LB Nagar, Hyderabad). However

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 towards the purchase of another residential house within the stipulated period as per Section 54 of the Act, she would be eligible for exemption U/s. 54 of the Act and LTCG would not be attracted. For the aforesaid reasons it was submitted that the assessee had refrained from filing her return of income. The assessee also relied on certain

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

6. A plain reading of 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

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

properties only. As per the provisions of section 54 F of the LT. Act deduction is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. Thus, the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/ s 54F. 5. We have gone through the order passed

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

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

section 24 of the Act. In the alternative, ld.counsel for assessee also submitted that 50% of the house may be treated as self-occupied property and income from house property be recomputed accordingly. 4. Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee had no source of income and it is her husband

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

6, who is not required to furnish a return under this sub-section and who at any time during the previous year,— (a) holds, as a beneficial owner or otherwise, any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India or has signing authority in any account located outside India; or (b) is a beneficiary of any asset

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

6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A., submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the assessee, even though the assessee has invested the entire amount of sale consideration received pursuant to the JDA dated 26-04-2012 for the purchase of another residential house property on 03-09-2014. The learned

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 15 “(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

HYDERABAD INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

6. It transpires that the return of a total income of Rs.244030 was filed for the assessment year in question that is assessment year 1983-1984 and the entire income was through letting out of the aforesaid two properties namely, “Chennai House” and “Firhavin Estate”. Thus, there is no other income of the assessee except the income from letting