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

long term 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

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

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in\nrespect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement\nwith the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of\nacquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to\nscrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost\nclaimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were\nsubjected

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

long term 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

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

reassessment notice. Further, the assessee has filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 on 15.11.2018 and declared total income at Rs.11,42,204/-, which consist of long-term capital gains

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/-.”

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 and accordingly erred in upholding the action of the Ld.AO in assessing the difference

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/-.”

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 and accordingly erred in upholding the action of the Ld.AO in assessing the difference

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

long term capital gains on sale of equity shares of Rs.53,200/-; unexplained investment in purchase of equity shares of Rs.1,09,462/- and unexplained investment u/sec.69A in purchase of property of Rs.55,75,000/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.57,37,887/- as against the returned income of Rs.225 by the assessee. 10 ITA.No.986/Hyd

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

long-term capital gains through managed trading of shares. Thus, the whole exercise shows a predetermined mind on the part of the A0 to issue notice under section 148 and complete lack of application of mind on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing without carrying out any further examination/verification and that too at the fag end of the limitation

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

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:

Long-Term 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

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

long term capital gains (LTCG) on sale of Flat No.1, which was registered on 13/05/2017 for consideration of Rs.1.16 crores. However, the AO observed that the assessee had held the property for a period of less than three years and the capital gain derived therefrom was short term capital gain (STCG). Accordingly, the AO held a conviction that the assessee

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

long term capital gains. Thereafter, notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

long term capital gains. Thereafter, notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

long term capital gains. Thereafter, notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

long term capital gains. Thereafter, notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 26.09.2019. In response thereto, assessee filed a letter offering his explanation and the same was reproduced by the Assessing Officer at Paragraph 1.4 of his order, which is to the following effect : “1.4 In response to the notice u/s. 153 A, the assessee has filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

Long Term Capital Gain was found in the premises of the assessee and the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer were based on the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata pursuant to the survey action carried out in the premises of the broker. Page 15 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar

JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

Long Term Capital Gain was found in the premises of the assessee and the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer were based on the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata pursuant to the survey action carried out in the premises of the broker. Page 15 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar

KANISHK GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.34/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Long Term Capital Gain was found in the premises of the assessee and the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer were based on the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata pursuant to the survey action carried out in the premises of the broker. 18. Recently, we had an occasion to examine an identical issue in the case of Mahesh