SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

54F of the Act was not raised by the assessee in his original return of income or the revised return, but it can still be raised, as the relevant material was available on record before the appellate authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Ld. AR in support of his contention, has relied upon the order

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

section 54F of the Act, regarding the STCG on transfer of 517.87 sq yds of land may not be withdrawn. In reply, the assessee, in all fairness, had candidly accepted that the aforesaid claim for deduction was erroneously raised, and had requested the Ld. PCIT that a consequential order may be passed by him directing modification of the reassessment

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

54F: Rs.61,03,380/-, vide his order passed under section 147 5 Tulasi Chamarthy vs. ITO r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 29/02/2024 and determined the short term 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

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

reassessment vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22-03-2022 had failed to examine the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F

PEDABALLI SUKANYA,ANANTAPUR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHITTOOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

54F was made during reassessment proceedings, the AO was directed to re-examine the claim afresh. The Tribunal acknowledged that fresh claims are generally not entertained in reassessment but found merit in re-considering the issue for statistical purposes.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

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 proceedings and further, none of the authorities below have examined the fact with regard to one of the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act, i.e. filing of return of income on or before the due date for filing the return of income as provided u/s 139 of the Act and further as per section

K GOPAL RAJ, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CEN.CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

reassessment. 16. The learned CIT(A) having held that the transfer takes place only when the project is completed to tax the capital gains in the year of completion of project by adopting sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received whichever is high. 17. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. K GOPAL RAJ, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

reassessment. 16. The learned CIT(A) having held that the transfer takes place only when the project is completed to tax the capital gains in the year of completion of project by adopting sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received whichever is high. 17. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY NAGARAJU, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

reassessment. 16. The learned CIT(A) having held that the transfer takes place only when the project is completed to tax the capital gains in the year of completion of project by adopting sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received whichever is high. 17. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY KISHORE, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

reassessment. 16. The learned CIT(A) having held that the transfer takes place only when the project is completed to tax the capital gains in the year of completion of project by adopting sale consideration at stamp duty value or actual consideration received whichever is high. 17. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time

SRINIVAS PAMPATI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

54F of the Act from the assessee. However, no details were furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the Ld. AO treated the entire amount of Rs.1,71,13,333/- as long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee and completed assessment under section 147 ITA Nos.228 & 229/Hyd/2025 5 read with section 144B

HANMANDLU PAMPATI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the Act from the assessee. However, no details\nwere furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the Ld. AO treated\nthe entire amount of Rs.1,71,13,333/- as long-term capital gain in the\nhands of the assessee and completed assessment under section 147\nread with section 144B of the Act on 19.05.2023 at a total income of\nRs.1

SANJAY KUMAR SANGHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2012-13 Sanjay Kumar Sanghi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 12(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5491R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/03/2022

54F, which is a plausible method. Therefore the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, order under section 263 is bad in law. 8. For these and such other grounds that may I General be urged at the time of hearing your appellant prays that the order under

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment which comes to his notice, subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. From the plain reading of section 147 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that there should be reasonable belief of escapement of income from tax and such reason to believe

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 147 rws 144 & 1448 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 147 rws 144 & 1448 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s.147 of the Act dated 22-12-2019.\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the\nreassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is erroneous as no tangible\nmaterial was found which indicates that the assessee has escaped the\nincome.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.Sunder Singh

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received