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

section 80IA(1) of the Act, the NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. assessee need not to pay any tax on such income derived from eligible business but he is supposed to pay tax on the house property income of Rs.1 crore. On the other hand, if the argument of the assessee that income from eligible business of 1 crore

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

66,031/- available as opening cash in hand of the Appellant as on 01.04.2016. 7. The NFAC. erred in solely relying on the figure appearing under schedule AL in the return of Income of earlier year even though glaring evidences such as financial statements as well as cash flow statement was produced by the Appellant to prove the factual situation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

66 stations, 3 depots and 18.5 million sft of transit oriented development. 5. It is noticed from the computation of total income that while arriving at the loss from business or profession at (-) Rs. 60,22,950/-, and the income from other sources arrived at Rs. 90,33,146/- which was set off against the loss from business

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property at Rs1,11,61,147/- and net income at Rs. 66,36,216/- as against the income shown at Rs.17,09,114/-. The AO has also added an amount of Rs. 54,54,000/- as unexplained investment under section

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

property, inspite of a favorable recommendation from the Assessing Officer. 3. The learned Commissioner further erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.16,08,014/- which is claimed as business expenditure as the loan taken from SBI, Balanagar branch was utilized for the purpose of business, Page 1 of 11 ITA No 338 of 2016 Impact Metals Ltd Medak

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

section 54(1), you are exempt". 7 12.6 Further, in Mukesh G. Desai(HUF) vs. ITO(2009) 312 ITR(AT) (302)(MUM) it was held: "Where the assessee enters into an agreement for investment in purchase of a flat, but later the agreement gets cancelled and the assessee gets refund and utilizes the same for purchase of another property within

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

66,00,000 out of which 52,80,000 is paid from Housing loan availed from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and the remaining 13,20,000 is Page 3 of 16 ITA Nos 1016 and 1017 of 2025 Krishnakumar Manda paid out of Assessee's past savings and as such the addition deserves to be deleted

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

66,00,000 out of which 52,80,000 is paid from Housing loan availed from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and the remaining 13,20,000 is Page 3 of 16 ITA Nos 1016 and 1017 of 2025 Krishnakumar Manda paid out of Assessee's past savings and as such the addition deserves to be deleted

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

66,54,115 ÷ 100 X 785) = Rs. 51,34, 803 = Rs. 23,65,197 Less deduction U/s. 54 = Rs. 23,65,197 LTCG = NIL______ (Investment in House Property U/s. 54 of the Act Rs. 1,03,36,000) 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO after examining the case of the assessee computed the LTCG of the assessee by adopting the assessee

CHANDRA DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

66,23,000/- and after claiming the indexed cost of land given for development and investment in house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without

MADHU DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

66,23,000/- and after claiming the indexed cost of land given for development and investment in house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without

RATANLAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

66,23,000/- and after claiming the indexed cost of land given for development and investment in house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without

RAJESH KUMAR JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

66,23,000/- and after claiming the indexed cost of land given for development and investment in house property has claimed ‘nil’ long term capital gain. We find the learned PCIT has given a finding that as per the letter of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that she has sold all the seven flats during the impugned A.Y without

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

66 (Andhra Pradesh), the Hon’ble High Court reached a conclusion that if the investment is made in fixed deposits in nationalised banks from out of the own funds of the assessee, the interest derived from such investment would be from the activities listed in clause (i) to (vii) of section 80P(2)(a) of the Act and would

POTTABATHINI SUDHARSHAN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2011-12 Pottabathini Sudarshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(4), Pan: Ahups 5683 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

house property and business. Thereafter, it was revealed that the assessee had sold an immovable property on 14/01/2011 bearing Municipal No. 5-1-373/2 situated at Mekala Banda, Ghasmand, Secunderabad admeasuring plinth area of 1200 sft along with undivided share of land of 13 sq yds to Sri Jitender P Seth for sale consideration of Rs. 9 lakhs. However

PENNINTI VIVEKANANDA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

66,038/-, consisting of Capital Gains of Rs.4,78,14,391/- and Income from Other Sources of Rs.42,61,647/-. Out of the total capital gains, the assessee had shown Rs.3,22,68,672/- arising from surrender of three Equity Plus Fund issued by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Bajaj Equity Plus Fund”). The case of the assessee

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made