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

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

property,\nit would not disentitle her from claiming deduction under Section\n54F of the Act. We say so, for the reason that the word ‘purchase'\nas used in sub-section (2) of Section 54F is not restricted or\nconfined to a registered sale deed or even to possession, but has a\nwider connotation. We concur with the Ld. CIT(Appeals

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

House Property" in the impugned assessment years in the absence of complete details. Suffice to say that for analyzing the issue in respect of jurisdiction under section 263 by Ld, CIT, we are convinced that the orders of A.O. are not either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, since the issues

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

81,90,250/- vide cheque No.896026 dated 28-04-2016, drawn ICICI bank which is including of TDS u/s 194IA. 12.1 Thus, the appellant has factually demonstrated, that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plot was reinvested in a residential property, though the legal formalities of getting the property in the appellant’s name did not take place

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -8(1) , HYDERABAD vs. THIRUPALAPPA CHOWDARY NAGELI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Shri Thirupalappa Circle 8(1) Chowdary Nageli, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adbpn9171H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohammed Afzal, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-8, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal 1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition U/ 68 Of Rs.40,50,000/- Under The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Failed To Establish With Documentary Evidences That The Rental Receipts Received In Puttaparthi Were Deposited In Cash In Hyderabad Which Is Far Of Place”.

81,350/- whereas the capital was Rs.1,36,36,127/- as per the return filed for the preceding year. The difference of Rs.11,32,45,223/- is on a/c of introduction of various assets made out of the earlier source of income. The assessee filed a detailed statement showing the purchase of various properties during different financial years. From

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

81,234/- claimed by the Appellant U/s. 54F of the Act. b) The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in stating that the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidences in support of the expenditure incurred on construction of the house property as the appellant has in fact submitted all the supporting evidences/ details including bank statements both before the Assessing

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

81[during any previous year ending before the 1st day of April, 2005], on or before the due date in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided further that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of persons

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made

DCIT,CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. CLEAN CITY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc4799H Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

Property Act, at the cost of repetition, is only for the purpose of transfer under section 2(47) which, in turn, is relevant, as it states in so many words by using the expression “transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes”, only for the purposes of capital assets under the Income Tax Act. An asset included in the stock

THE INDUR INTIDEEPAM PRODUCERS MA CO-OP SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

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

81,208/- Jana Suraksha Premium from MACS 13,43,996/- NPS remuneration from PFRDA 4,41,465/- Therefore, it is apparent that the activities of the appellant ire mainly related to Micro Insurance premium from MACS, NPS contribution from MACS, Loan Insurance premium for 1 & 2 year - Aviva Insurance charges from MACS, Commission from LIC, Jana Suraksha Premium from MACS

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

81,965/- on transfer of flats received out of development agreement entered with M/s. Saara Homes and LTCG of Rs.9,93,518/- on transfer of land to M/s. Happy Homes Housing and claimed all such LTCG as deduction u/s.54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), thereby offered for taxation LTCG of Rs. NIL. The case of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(x) and proviso as provided therein, the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein has been paid by way of an account payee cheque on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. Since the appellant claims to have entered into

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(x) and proviso as provided therein, the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein has been paid by way of an account payee cheque on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. Since the appellant claims to have entered into