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

Bench: Us:

70,00,000/- received on account of sale of house property in capital gains accounts scheme. 3. The Learned. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the requirement of the section

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 80-O, is of no help to the appellant.” 2.2 Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA from the income from house property as claimed. Thus, we dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee on this issue.” 3. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the above-mentioned decision and in accordance with “The Rule

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 80-O, is of no help to the appellant.” 2.2 Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA from the income from house property as claimed. Thus, we dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee on this issue.” 3. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the above-mentioned decision and in accordance with “The Rule

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

70,10,000 72,44,008 -2,34,008 Co-operative Housing Society, Guttala Begumpet, Hyderabad, Plot No.65 3. Residential Plot at 2,51,30,000 38,18,304 2,13,11,696 Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal Total: 4,51,40,000 3,20,02,771 The assessee made an investment of Rs.3,36,00,000/- in the construction

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the appellant is liable for penalty on this amount. It is seen that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for earlier years where in the amount of hire charges were treated as income from house property and expenses were not allowed. Though the assessee admitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

70), as well as setting off loss from one head against income from another (section 71). In the facts of this case the company cannot claim any relief under either of these two sections, since its business had not started and there could not be any computation of business income or loss incurred by the assessee in the relevant accounting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

70), as well as setting off loss from one head against income from another (section 71). In the facts of this case the company cannot claim any relief under either of these two sections, since its business had not started and there could not be any computation of business income or loss incurred by the assessee in the relevant accounting

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.:

70), as well as setting off loss from one head against income from another (section 71). In the facts of this case the company cannot claim any relief under either of these two sections, since its business had not started and there could not be any computation of business income or loss incurred by the assessee in the relevant accounting

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

section 294 of the Act. 11. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to delete the arbitrary additions made and upheld by the lower authorities. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 24.07.2017, declaring

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

70,717/- made by the Assessing Officer towards annual value of the vacant portions of the house property and consequently erred in confirming the addition of Rs.48,09,502/- made under the head 'Income from house property'. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.48,09,502/- made by the Assessing Officer was without

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD)- RANGE -1, HYDERABAD vs. ANURADHA PROPERTIES & TOWNSHIPS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

housing plots at Bangalore which attracts provisions of section 40A(3). The cash payment according to the sworn statement are Rs.1.50 crores. For the above reasons, the Assessing Officer forming opinion that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and had issued notice u/s. 148.” 3. Accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act was issued to the assessee

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD)- RANGE -1, HYDERABAD vs. ANURADHA PROPERTIES & TOWNSHIPS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

housing plots at Bangalore which attracts provisions of section 40A(3). The cash payment according to the sworn statement are Rs.1.50 crores. For the above reasons, the Assessing Officer forming opinion that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and had issued notice u/s. 148.” 3. Accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act was issued to the assessee

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

property (“Original Residential House”) vide registered sale deed dated 14.12.2017 for a total consideration of Rs.3,70,00,000/-. The long-term capital gain on the said transfer was computed at Rs.1,33,83,234/-, out of which the assessee’s share at 50% worked out to Rs.66,91,617/-. The assessee claimed deduction of the entire long term capital

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

3 relates to treatment of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- paid to the builder for purchase of residential property as unexplained investment u/s 69A. 13.1 With respect to the above. addition made to the returned income, the AO has made the following observations which is reproduced below: Further, as per assessee's 360 profile available with this office

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

house, as an information centre for the members of the association and provide co-operative services in their common benefits". According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee being a National Association of Software Service Companies, it was natural for it to provide such services to its members. He noted that the services also included the following: - • "It provides information

ABDUL SALAM SHAIK,PILER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Section 143(3) of the Act\ndated 29.07.2025 whereby an addition of Rs.9,70,000/- has been deleted.\nAccordingly, the issue that survives for adjudication before the Tribunal relates\nto the balance addition of Rs.1,02,28,860/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that\nthe assessee had explained the entire source of investment in the house\nproperty before the lower

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular has been issued

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