ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

short term capital gains, in respect of sale of built up area and long term capital gains in respect of land. We find that similar issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No.637/Hyd/2022. As the facts are identical but for figures for this year also, the reasons given

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

short term in nature. 7. The department submits that Ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that the capital gain will be long term and thus allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F. 8. The department further submits, that the claim of assessee towards deduction u/s 54F was allowed without examination of its allowability. IV. ON ORDER

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

house property of Rs.89,880/-, income from business of Rs.49,000/-, income from other sources of Rs.75,915/-, short term capital gain

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

term capital asset (hereinafter referred to as the\noriginal asset), other than a residential house and the assessee has within a period of\none year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place\npurchased or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a new\nresidential house, then no capital gain

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 at Gopanapalli village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.3,59,00,000/-. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that three flats sold by the assessee is a short-term capital gain

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

house property and towards income from short term and long term capital gains and the case was processed. Thereafter, information

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

Bench: Us:

short, ‘the Act’) dated 30/12/2018 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Learned. CIT(A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The Learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee has appropriated towards

NAVEEN KUMAR MUSINIPALLY,USA vs. ADIT (INT-TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

term capital gains arising from transfer of property in pursuance to JDA for the year under consideration. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) rejected the grounds taken by the assessee on this issue.\n8. Further, in so far as computation of cost of acquisition etc., and deduction claimed u/sec.54F of the Act on account of investment in residential house, the learned

RATANLAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

properties those were sold for a period of 3 years from the date of acquisition and therefore, the income of the assessee has to be taxed on account of short-term capital gain @ 30%. However, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has allowed the claim of long-term capital gain at Nil. He therefore, issued a notice

MADHU DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

properties those were sold for a period of 3 years from the date of acquisition and therefore, the income of the assessee has to be taxed on account of short-term capital gain @ 30%. However, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has allowed the claim of long-term capital gain at Nil. He therefore, issued a notice

CHANDRA DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

properties those were sold for a period of 3 years from the date of acquisition and therefore, the income of the assessee has to be taxed on account of short-term capital gain @ 30%. However, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has allowed the claim of long-term capital gain at Nil. He therefore, issued a notice

RAJESH KUMAR JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

properties those were sold for a period of 3 years from the date of acquisition and therefore, the income of the assessee has to be taxed on account of short-term capital gain @ 30%. However, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has allowed the claim of long-term capital gain at Nil. He therefore, issued a notice