ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

reassessment. The assessee sold two flats in FY 2014-15, relevant to AY 2015-16, and reported short-term capital gains

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his ROI on 24.03.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,600/-. After going through the submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO contended that the transfer of property take place in the year of JDA and the assessee is liable for capital

VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

capital gain by denying the exemption u/s. 54 and made 2 ITA 260/Hyd/2022 addition of Rs. 46,35,194/- on account of denial of cost of improvement. 2.1 Subsequently, a search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was carried out in case of the assessee on 20.11.2019. In response to notice u/s. 153A issued on 08.06.2021 which

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD vs. NARENDRA KUMAR KAMARAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.338/Hyd/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Narendra Kumar Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kamaraju, Hyderabad. 3-83/1/A/5, Nizampet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan: Aiypk 1035 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Ravi Bharadwaj ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr

gains on the transfer of above land admeasuring Ac. 10.00 gts shall not arise as the assessee is not the owner of the capital asset. This fact has been clearly brought out from the sale deed enclosed as part of the paper book submitted.  Further, the Department has raised a ground on not obtaining a remand report from

VASAMSETTY VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gain as well as indexation cost. It was further submitted that the document relates to the assessee and therefore, the lower authorities had relied upon this document for the purpose of deciding the issue against the assessee. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record, including the registered sale deed and section 153C

RAVI KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

capital gains, if any arising out of transfer of property, in pursuant to joint development agreement dated 24.03.2011. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 on or before the date provided in the reassessment

ALLRUI SRINIVAS RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

capital gains. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case :- (i) The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified in coming to the conclusion that Appellant has not furnished evidence that the subject land was stock in trade. (ii) The finding of the Assessing Officer that Appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence that the character of the land

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27,69,422/- towards difference in interest. 4. Further, the ld.CIT(A) failed to observe that the notes to financial statements clearly mentioned the interest income which pertained to the previous year and accordingly erred in upholding the action of the Ld.AO in assessing the difference in interest

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27,69,422/- towards difference in interest. 4. Further, the ld.CIT(A) failed to observe that the notes to financial statements clearly mentioned the interest income which pertained to the previous year and accordingly erred in upholding the action of the Ld.AO in assessing the difference in interest

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. MIKKILINENI NARENDRA KUMAR, SERILINGAMPALLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

capital gains on the above transactions, therefore, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated for the A.Y. 2016-17 and a notice

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN INFRA ESTATES LLP, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

gain arising from application of capital asset into stock-in-trade. Whereas, in cases, where the stock-in-trade converted into or treated as capital asset, the existing law does not provide for its taxability. In order to provide simple treatment and describe the practice of difference payment of tax by converting into the inventory into fixed assets, provisions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN DWELLINGS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

gain arising from application of capital asset into stock-in-trade. Whereas, in cases, where the stock-in-trade converted into or treated as capital asset, the existing law does not provide for its taxability. In order to provide simple treatment and describe the practice of difference payment of tax by converting into the inventory into fixed assets, provisions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASIAN INFRA ESTATES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

gain arising from application of capital asset into stock-in-trade. Whereas, in cases, where the stock-in-trade converted into or treated as capital asset, the existing law does not provide for its taxability. In order to provide simple treatment and describe the practice of difference payment of tax by converting into the inventory into fixed assets, provisions

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

capital gain on the sale of the subject property of Rs.81,62,440/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

capital gain from transfer of property. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act on 08-01-2024 and determined the total income of assessee at Rs.7,81,75,000. 10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

capital gain from transfer of property. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act on 08-01-2024 and determined the total income of assessee at Rs.7,81,75,000. 10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

capital gain from transfer of property. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act on 08-01-2024 and determined the total income of assessee at Rs.7,81,75,000. 10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

capital gain from transfer of property. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act on 08-01-2024 and determined the total income of assessee at Rs.7,81,75,000. 10. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. The Learned Counsel