ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

90,000/-. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 was issued and the case was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the assessee that during the relevant previous year she had sold her residential house property for sale consideration of Rs. 61,37,000/- and purchased of another residential house in the name

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” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section

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” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section

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

property\nwithin the stipulated time even though the legal formalities of getting the\nproperty in the appellant's name did not take place within the time\nstipulated u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act.\nThe appellant placed reliance on the various legal precedence where in\nthe it was held that Sec 54F being analogous section calls for a more\nliberal

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

90,010/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 76,83,990/- for purchase of another residential house property

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

90,33,146/- which was set off against the loss from business of (-) Rs. 60,22,950/- and arrived gross income at Rs. 30,10,195/-. 6. Drawing attention of the decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Thermal Power Tech Corporation India Ltd vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad in ITA No. 1534/Hyd/2016

CHALLA SATISH REDDY HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 46/Hyd/2020 ( िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 )

90,16,300/- after claiming exemption u/s.54EC of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). During the course of assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee admitted an income of Rs.57,56,254/- from house property, Rs.1,31,84,565/- from capital gains and Rs.2,30,480/- from other sources. From their property called Challa Chambers, wherein the brother

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 22 of the I.T. Act, the income received on the building and land appurtenant thereto, is to be treated as “income from house property”. Therefore, the AO treated it as income from house property and observing that only the expenditure mentioned u/s 24 is to be allowed, the AO observed that the interest portion of Rs.16

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

90 days, that longer period shall apply. The limitation period applicable to this appeal is covered by the above decision and, therefore, this appeal shall be treated as filed within the period of limitation. We, therefore, now shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. Assessee is an individual claiming to have been deriving income from salary, capital gains

S.M.QUTUBUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Video Conference)

house property, even though the property was vacant for the whole year and was in fact demolished, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in stating that the assessing officer has adopted the value of the appellant's share 1/1 o" property even though the entire income was brought

S.M.FASIUDDIN, REPRESENTED BY GPA MR.S.M.QUTUBUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Video Conference)

house property, even though the property was vacant for the whole year and was in fact demolished, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in stating that the assessing officer has adopted the value of the appellant's share 1/1 o" property even though the entire income was brought

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)

90 days, that longer period shall apply. Even such extended period of limitation expires by the end of May, 2022. 3. The cross objections filed on 18/07/2022 are clearly barred by limitation. Assessee made no attempt to comply with the objection taken by the Registry on the aspect of delay and no explanation is forthcoming. We, therefore, find no option

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016–17 on 16.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,85,350/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case of the assessee along with M/s Moksha Infracon Private Limited ( “the developer

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

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 within

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 had complied with the relevant provisions of Section 54F of the Act with respect to the assessment year 2012-13 ie., the NRI vendors had at least deposited the sale proceeds in the LTCG Scheme account within the stipulated period under the Act during the relevant assessment year. In that case the NRI Vendors would be eligible

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

90,00,000 MD Sayeed 4.58 Gts 97,00,000 Qureshi 2.7 The AO observed that as per the Agreement For Sale (AFS) entered with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan on 20.10.2007, substantial amount of consideration was paid by transferor and possession of the property was also given by the family members of the assessee, clearly falling

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

90,00,000 MD Sayeed 4.58 Gts 97,00,000 Qureshi 2.7 The AO observed that as per the Agreement For Sale (AFS) entered with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan on 20.10.2007, substantial amount of consideration was paid by transferor and possession of the property was also given by the family members of the assessee, clearly falling

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

90,00,000 MD Sayeed 4.58 Gts 97,00,000 Qureshi 2.7 The AO observed that as per the Agreement For Sale (AFS) entered with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan on 20.10.2007, substantial amount of consideration was paid by transferor and possession of the property was also given by the family members of the assessee, clearly falling

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

90,00,000 MD Sayeed 4.58 Gts 97,00,000 Qureshi 2.7 The AO observed that as per the Agreement For Sale (AFS) entered with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan on 20.10.2007, substantial amount of consideration was paid by transferor and possession of the property was also given by the family members of the assessee, clearly falling