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 and submitted that in accordance with ‘The Rule of Consistency’ and ‘The Doctrine of Judicial Discipline’, the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set-aside and the action of Learned Assessing Officer be restored. Our submission: a. Post the ITAT Order for AY 2011-12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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 and submitted that in accordance with ‘The Rule of Consistency’ and ‘The Doctrine of Judicial Discipline’, the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set-aside and the action of Learned Assessing Officer be restored. Our submission: a. Post the ITAT Order for AY 2011-12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us". In the case before us, the assessee had admittedly completed four buildings i.e. G, H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits

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

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us". In the case before us, the assessee had admittedly completed four buildings i.e. G, H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits

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

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us". In the case before us, the assessee had admittedly completed four buildings i.e. G, H, I & K and has also furnished the occupancy certificate dated 29.3.2012. Therefore, the assessee is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the profits

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 22/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Nsl Properties Private Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aaccn7387G] (अपीलधर्थी / Appellant) (प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent)

77,901/-. 5. Subsequently, on a perusal of record, the learned Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had long term borrowings of Rs. 142.9 crores Page 2 of 11 C.O.No. 14/Hyd/2022 and paid interest thereon at Rs. 19.66 crores whereas the assessee was advancing interest free advances to related parties to the tune of Rs. 104.77 crores, and directed

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)

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. The A.O. had also made addition of Rs. 61,44,000/- towards unexplained investment for failure of the assessee to explain source for purchase of the property. Similarly, the A.O. further 4 Manoj Kumar Chowrah observed that, the assessee has computed short term capital gain from sale of property

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 20/11/2019, determined the capital gains with respect to the aforesaid property transaction entered into by the assessee as per DAGPA vide Document No.58/2021, dated 05/01/2012, registered with SRO, Shankerpally, R.R. District at Rs. 22,77,120/-, as under: “Computation of Capital Gains: 4 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

77,642 63,14,007 11,91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted