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

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

81,00,000/- 2.5 From the above it can be seen that out of sale consideration of Rs.9.20 crores, the assessee and family members have received Rs.8.20 crores and Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan together received Rs. 1 crore. In response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan confirmed that from the above

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

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.

81,25,800/- towards construction of a residential 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

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.

81,25,800/- towards construction of a residential 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