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

Bench: Us:

property was exempt under Section. 54 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: “4. In the alternative, the assessee pleaded before the Income-tax Officer that he started the construction of another residential house at 64, Surya Nagar, Agra, on March 10, 1963, and that came

SATYA SAYEE BABU DIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1268/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2022-23) Satya Sayee Babu Divi, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Ayeps7457B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Satya Sayee Babu Divi, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25/06/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

9,41,640/- to the total income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property by considering Maharaja Towers pent house-Flat no Phi 7th floor, RK beach, Vishakapatnam-530016 Andhra Pradesh as deemed let-out. However, the same was intended to let-out but no tenant has come and remained vacant for whole year. Later

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

property was\nexempt under Section. 54 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the\nobservations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under:\n“4. In the alternative, the assessee pleaded before the Income-\ntax Officer that he started the construction of another\nresidential house at 64, Surya Nagar, Agra, on March 10,\n1963, and that

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

Housing Boards, Public Works Department,\netc., acquire immovable property from the public for the\npurpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are\ndisbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of\ncompensation for land acquired including considerable\namount of interest on excess compensation as per the Land\nAcquisition Act. The interest payment made under the Land\nAcquisition Act are covered

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

Housing Boards, Public Works Department,\netc., acquire immovable property from the public for the\npurpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are\ndisbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of\ncompensation for land acquired including considerable\namount of interest on excess compensation as per the Land\nAcquisition Act. The interest payment made under the Land\nAcquisition Act are covered

SURENDRA BABU SABBINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

properties at S.No.2 to 6 fall under the category of residential houses and therefore, the case of the assessee is hit by proviso (a)(i) of section 54F of the I.T. Act. He therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F at Rs. 9

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property and thereby fulfilled the conditions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to claim exemption. Hence, the intention of the CIT (A) is totally wrong, bad & illegal. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs.2,63,67,705/-made in respect of section 54F be deleted. As such, Your Honor is requested to consider the above

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

house property, which were pledged with bank for obtaining loan by the company. These properties were sold by bank arid the sale proceeds were appropriated by bank to square off the loans of the company. The net consideration in this case is the sale amount collected by bank. Thus the net consideration on the sale of the original assets stands

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 50C of the I.T. Act. 6.2 It was argued that the properties sold by the assessee are under litigation as Smt. P. Vijaya Laxmi and three others contested the ownership of the land and filed a suit in the court of Senior Civil Judge, R.R. Dist. requesting the Hon'ble Judge to cancel the sale deed in respect

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

house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this\nsection referred to as the new asset), the difference between the\namount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be\ncharged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and\nfor the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any\ncapital gain arising

PENNINTI VIVEKANANDA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

House Property” instead of under the correct head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession.” The ITAT held that penalty under section 270A of the Act cannot be levied merely because of a change of head of income. Hence, respectfully following the same, under the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that

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

house property), one year before the date of transfer or within two years from the date of transfer of original asset. In other words, in order to get deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the assessee shall invest sale consideration on or before 25-04-2014. 9

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

9. The lower authorities erred in not giving credit of Tax Deducted at source by M/s Leadspace amounting to Rs.1,10,250/- in the computation sheet even though there is no mention of the same in the Assessment order or appellate order. 10. The tax authorities omitted to consider the ratio laid down by the Honourable Madras High Court

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

9 months from the date of handing over of signed plan by the owner to the developer. However, further grace period was agreed upon between the parties. The parties also agreed to share the ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 11 developed area on 50:50 ratio as per clause 4.1 and 4.2 as under : 11. Even the number of villas to each

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

9 months from the date of handing over of signed plan by the owner to the developer. However, further grace period was agreed upon between the parties. The parties also agreed to share the ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 11 developed area on 50:50 ratio as per clause 4.1 and 4.2 as under : 11. Even the number of villas to each

HYDERABAD INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

9. After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts, which were there before the Court, it came to the conclusion that income had to be treated as income from business and not as income from house property. We are of the opinion that the ITA-TP No.1856/Hyd/2019 12 aforesaid judgment in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd.'s case squarely applies

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

9. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned DR that the rental income of the building in Bangalore was claimed as ‘Income from House Property’ after claiming the standard deduction of 30% and the interest under section

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

9. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned DR that the rental income of the building in Bangalore was claimed as ‘Income from House Property’ after claiming the standard deduction of 30% and the interest under section