SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land transaction stands established on record. 13. Apart from that, we find that the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the searched person clearly records that the seized material revealed

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land transaction stands established on record. 13. Apart from that, we find that the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the searched person clearly records that the seized material revealed

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land transaction stands established on record. 13. Apart from that, we find that the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the searched person clearly records that the seized material revealed

SIVA SHANKER REDDY GANDLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

50C of the Act is applicable to the assessee's case. 5.3. Further the assessee has submitted that since the agricultural land that was sold by the assessee was not having a proper approach road and the land was surrounded by the lands of the neighbors from all the sides, the land was sold for a price less than

SIVAPOTHULURU VEERAREDDY GADLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

50C of the Act is applicable to the assessee's case. 5.3. Further the assessee has submitted that since the agricultural land that was sold by the assessee was not having a proper approach road and the land was surrounded by the lands of the neighbors from all the sides, the land was sold for a price less than

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

reassessment proceeding initiated by the AO is not valid. The AO, however, did not accept the assessee’s contentions and observed that proceedings were initiated with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT-II, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 23/03/2016 and notice dated 24/03/2016 u/s 148 was also issued and served on the assessee by affixture at the last known address

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 12. The issue raised in ground of appeal nos. 6 to 9 are against invoking

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 12. The issue raised in ground of appeal nos. 6 to 9 are against invoking

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 12. The issue raised in ground of appeal nos. 6 to 9 are against invoking

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 12. The issue raised in ground of appeal nos. 6 to 9 are against invoking

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

50C for the purposes of computation of capital gains as per the following details. S.No AY Land Extent (Sq Yd.) Sale Consideration (Rs.) Stamp Duty Value (Rs) 1. 2012-13 399 1415000 2843000 It was seen from the material impounded (vide copies of Annexure enclosed) at the time of search that the assessee was paid Rs.22,18,95,000/- (summary

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

YADI REDDY SANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

50C(2) of the Act, in view of the objects raised by the Appellant. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the deductions amounting to Rs.54,79,067 claimed by the Appellant in respect of commission paid while acquiring the property, cost

LATE S.SURESH LEGAL HEIR BY S.MAHESH ,SECUNDRABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

50C and brought the assessee’s share of the sale consideration to tax. 3. Aggrieved, the legal heir of the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) stating that the assessee has passed away on 14.12.2015 and the notice u/s 148 dated 8.3.2016 issued on a dead person, was an invalid notice and therefore, the assessment order

NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhassessment Year:2009-10

reassessment proceedings, the AO made the addition of Rs.2,71,89,574/- relating to long term capital gains invoking the provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act. Against which the assessee went on appeal before the CIT (A) and the Ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence the assessee filed this appeal before the ITAT. Page

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 50C for both the documents and brought the difference of Rs.22,92,480/- to tax :- 3 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 as Short Term Capital Gain in both the hands i.e., Rs.11,46,240/- in the hands of each of the assessee. 2.1. Aggrieved, assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A), both against validity of notice u/s.148