SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sabitha Anand Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hospital, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Abwfs9326E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital In The Name Of M/S. Sabitha Anand Hospitals. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,70,540/-. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 27.9.2016. Consequent To The Survey Operation, The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Of Page 1 Of 17

house property. The assessee also argued that the assessee has utilized inferior quality of material which is not at par with the specification of the material as per govt. standard for which the DVO himself gave a deduction of 10%. Further, it was argued that the construction of the building started in financial year

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 69 of the Income Tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, having income from house property

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 69 of the Income Tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, having income from house property

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 69 of the Income Tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, having income from house property

PRODDATURI SANJAY KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Proddaturi Sanjay Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Bfbps1905P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Prabhakar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

69 and applying the provisions of Section 115BBE arbitrarily, without establishing any unexplained investment or expenditure. 4. That the Learned AO failed to consider the nature of business and the small-scale operations of the appellant while making an excessive addition. 5. That the Learned AO erred in not appreciating that the appellant had duly explained the sources of payments

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, learned DR supported the impugned order stating that no panchayat approval is shown for the construction of such house and even according to the assessee, the assessee advanced a loan to one of the partners of M/s. Sky Bridge Constructions amounting to Rs. 5,69,40,000/- before 31/03/2013 and projected the same as an advance for the construction

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

houses were the subject matter of the assessment order or not. To this, he was not able to point out from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of section 54F on account of the assessee having two residential properties. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that ground no.2 which deals with