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 15,49,369 property 3 Short Term Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed

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 15,49,369 property 3 Short Term Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed

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

property on 03-09-2014. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the sale agreement dated 09-07-2014, submitted that the assessee has received consideration of Rs.79,74,000/- whereas invested Rs.1,01,00,000/- for purchase of a new residential house. If we go by the date of payment of advances to the seller, the assessee

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

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

74,831/- assessment year-wise respectively. Page 2 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Both the learned representatives invited out attention to CIT (A)’s detailed discussion in the lead A.Y 2014-15’s appeal ITA No.956/Hyd/2018 affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect as under: “5.0 The assessee raised as many as seven

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

74,831/- assessment year-wise respectively. Page 2 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Both the learned representatives invited out attention to CIT (A)’s detailed discussion in the lead A.Y 2014-15’s appeal ITA No.956/Hyd/2018 affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect as under: “5.0 The assessee raised as many as seven

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

74,831/- assessment year-wise respectively. Page 2 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Both the learned representatives invited out attention to CIT (A)’s detailed discussion in the lead A.Y 2014-15’s appeal ITA No.956/Hyd/2018 affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect as under: “5.0 The assessee raised as many as seven

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 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2.1. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 74 days. The appellant / Revenue has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In this connection, the appellant has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

house property using the above sale consideration. We have also been informed that they have deposited the entire sale consideration in the Long- Term Capital Gains Account Scheme with Andhra Bank MLA’s colony Branch, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and also claimed exemption U/s. 54 in the return filed for the AY 2012-13. We are herewith enclosing

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

house property and does not have any brought forward loss 3[or loss to be carried forward] under the head; or (iii) xxxxx 4[(I) has assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; (IA) has signing authority in any account located outside India; (IB) has income from any source outside India; (IC) has income to be apportioned

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWRAH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

74,30,000/-. The A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish relevant details to explain the source for cash deposit and also purchase of immovable property. The assessee has not furnished any details and also not explained the source for cash deposit. In so far as the investment made in purchase of immovable property, the assessee claimed that, the source

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

74,064/- can be taxed under the provisions of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act. 25. Thus, it is observed that the capital receipts are inherently outside the scope of income which can be taxed u/s 28(iv) of the Act apart from lack of pre-conditions for taxing such benefit that there should be benefit or perquisites

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

KONDE NARASIMHA (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

MALI CHANDRASEKHAR (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

KONDE ANJAIAH (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

KONDE MALLESH(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land

MALI NARASIMHA (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

house, the property is owned by Smt. K. Anitha and not the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land