DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

7. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the provisions laid down u/s 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession

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

Bench: Us:

property was exempt under Section. 54 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: “4. In the alternative, the assessee pleaded before the Income-tax Officer that he started the construction of another residential house at 64, Surya Nagar, Agra, on March 10, 1963, and that came

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:

section 22 of the Act. It was contended that ownership of the property is a sine qua non for charging income under the head “Income from House Property”. Since the assessee was not the owner of the property, either in law or in fact, no addition could be made in the hands of the Page 7

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

7) which is an industrial property and therefore, not to be reckoned while considering the claim of deduction u/s 54F. 5. However, so far as properties situated at Sai Pavan Kuteer (S. No.2), Flat No.1, Flat No.4, Flat No.204 of Sai Lakshmi Nilayam, Hyderabad (S.Nos.3 to 5) and Swastik Apartment at Siliguri (S.No.6) are concerned, he observed from

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.:

Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed 'a residential house'.[Para 7

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

7 days was purely a coincidence. The order of the CIT (A) states that "Gift settlement deed is clearly a colourable device . Whereas, if the property is gifted to the father, being a lineal ascendant, the gifted property would come back to the son (assessee) as an inherited property or the father would even gift back the same property

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

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

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

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

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

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

7 Bollineni Krishna Kumari assessee herself admitted income from house property from two houses. The details of two houses are as under: The details of which are as under: 1. H. No 4-35/563/18; Paparayudu Nagar, Jagadgiri gutta, Hyderabad 500072. 2. Plot No. 994, Gokul Plots, Hyderabad. The assessee furnished the relevant purchased deeds of the above said properties

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

7. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the provisions of section 54 and 54F, the learned CIT held that the Assessing Officer is not correct in his assumption that the same money is to be used. The learned CIT(A) considered the provisions of section 54 and 54F, wherein, it was observed that the section permits purchase

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

Section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 29.09.2024, i.e., on the matter\nhaving been set aside by the Tribunal, after necessary deliberations\nand perusal of the documents, observed that except for one\nproperty, i.e., the property situated at Ghatkeswar, Uppal,\nMedipally, Hyderabad, the remaining eight properties (out of nine\nproperties) were found to be commercial properties. However, the\nA.O. observed

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

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

7. With this background, we first refer to the judgment of this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.'s case which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property and other sources. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.49,28,566/- under section 80IA(4)(iv) in respect of profits derived from the solar power unit. The return of income was filed by the assessee within the extended due date of 15th March, 2022. The audit report in Form No.10CCB was required to be filed before one month

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

7 76,32,000/-. The appellant has computed long-term capital gain of Rs. 76,83,990/- and claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Act for reinvestment of consideration for purchase of another residential house property

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

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. 8. The NFAC erred in confirming the addition of the AO wherein the cash

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

7 submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have