KRISHNA MURTHY ELLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, the law is very clear, where an assessee receives any property other than the immovable property for a consideration which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs.50,000, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeded such consideration should be treated

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

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

reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running into 157 pages containing common sale agreement dt.01.04.2011, sale deed dt.14.11.2013, property valuation report, certificate of market value of the property(ies) on sale agreement as well

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

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

reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running into 157 pages containing common sale agreement dt.01.04.2011, sale deed dt.14.11.2013, property valuation report, certificate of market value of the property(ies) on sale agreement as well

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

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

reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running into 157 pages containing common sale agreement dt.01.04.2011, sale deed dt.14.11.2013, property valuation report, certificate of market value of the property(ies) on sale agreement as well

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

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

reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running into 157 pages containing common sale agreement dt.01.04.2011, sale deed dt.14.11.2013, property valuation report, certificate of market value of the property(ies) on sale agreement as well

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

reassessment proceedings, the assessee responded only on one occasion by filing submissions dated 13.10.2021. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs.3,56,19,580/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, Rs.50,38,59,200/- as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

reassessment proceedings, the assessee responded only on one occasion by filing submissions dated 13.10.2021. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs.3,56,19,580/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, Rs.50,38,59,200/- as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

56(1)(vii) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A), after\nconsidering the relevant facts has rightly deleted the additions\nmade by the Assessing Officer towards cost of acquisition of\nRs.95 crores on ‘protective basis' and substantive addition of\n44 crore in the hands of the assessee. Thus, we are inclined to\nuphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss

SAMA SANGEETA REDDY REP. BY GPA HOLDER SAMA SUNIL KUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details, even though, the case was listed for hearing on 6 occasions. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined the total income at Rs.4

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined the total income at Rs.4

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

2 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 invoking Section 50C despite the alleged fact that the land sold herein is agricultural only than a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. We deem it appropriate first of all to deal with certain basic facts. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has summarised

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

2 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 invoking Section 50C despite the alleged fact that the land sold herein is agricultural only than a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. We deem it appropriate first of all to deal with certain basic facts. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has summarised

GREEN MANGOS REAL ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

BANDHO REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

ALDER INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

AMRUTHA AGRO ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

PRADEEPTHI INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

BHUVANESH INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised