SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

short term and long term capital gains and the case was processed. Thereafter, information was received from l&CI, Hyd that the assessee along with 46 other persons had entered into Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of attorney with M/s Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP, Hyd for construction of residential and commercial project vide registered deed bearing no. 2357/2016

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

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. 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

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

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

short term capital gain from the said transaction ie., Rs. 30 lacs on Ac. 22.27 gts in the tax return filed for the AY 2020-21.  The Ld. CIT(A) in the order has clearly stated that the capital gains on the transfer of above land admeasuring Ac. 10.00 gts shall not arise as the assessee is not the owner

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

term capital gains of Rs.1339.22ps which is below the threshold limit of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption of the tax. 5.6. On similar addition of Rs.1,09,462/- as unexplained investment u/sec.69A of the Act in purchase of equity shares, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that sec.69A can be invoked by the Assessing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Term Capital Gains Rs.22,12,74,800/- This has resulted into short computation of total income of Rs.22,12,74,800/- with a tax effect of Rs.10,00,31,035/-. After verification of the facts from the assessment record this aspect needs thorough verification. B) Besides the above it is also observed that deficiencies in the interest calculation u/s 234A

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law. 5. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law. 5. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law. 5. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe

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

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

capital gains / short term\ncapital gains has been offered to tax by Dalmia Bharat\nEnterprises Ltd. The shares were never held by the assessee at\nany point of time, nor the assessee is having any position in\nthe said company. Although the Assessing Officer alleged that\nthe shares of Bharati Cement Corporation Ltd. were held in the\nname of Dalmia

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-16(2),, HYDERABAD vs. MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Dy. C I T Vs. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Circle 16(2) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcm9780D (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr)

short computed. In response to the statutory notices issues u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, the AR of the assessee appeared before the AO from time to time and furnished the requisite information as called for. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and a notice of demand of Rs.2

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

Capital gains”. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the claim of deduction u/s 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

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.

short term capital gain (STCG) in respect of 517.87 sq yds of land (as the period of holding of the said piece of land was less than 36 months). Accordingly, it was observed by him that the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54 of the Act w.r.t STCG arising on the transfer of 517.87 sq yds of land

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)

short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order and dismissing the appeal filed against the assessment order. 2. That Ld.. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the notice issued u/s. 153A

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

short "NFAC"], Delhi, dated 26.08.2025 relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2 Subbalakshmi Pinnama 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer received information that, the assessee had been

VENUGOPAL REDDY GELIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

short \"Ld. DR\") objected to the\nseeking of condonation of the delay involved in filing of the appeal\nby the assessee. We have heard the learned authorized\nrepresentatives of both parties qua the delay involved in filing of the\nappeal in the backdrop of the material available on record. We find\nthat the assessee in the present case before

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

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

short “GPA”] with GK Shelters\n(P) Ltd., Bangalore vide document no. 3933/2011 registered\non 17.01.2011 in respect of the undivided share of land\nadmeasuring 2 acres and 5 guntas at Ananthapura village,\nYelahanka, Hubli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. A\nsharing agreement was made vide document no. 6108 dated\n16.01.2012, according to which, the assessee's share of\nprofit

ABHISHEK REDDY BOYAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN) - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.352/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Abhishek Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Boyapally, Hyderabad International Taxation-2, Pan: Bodpb0397F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ca Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Abhishek Reddy Boyapally (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad (“Ld. Ao”), Dated 25.12.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property., thereby determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,62,642/-. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is pressing only single legal ground