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

U/s 147 as there was no capital gains chargeable to Tax in AY 2016-17 arising from the JDA dated 04.04.2007 and the JDA dated 10.02.2016 did not alter the factum of handing over of possession to the developer. 10.The Ld A.O/DRP erred in giving a finding that possession of land was given in consequences of second JDA dated

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

Bench: Us.

reassessment passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.03.2022 may not be set-aside under Section 263 of the Act. 8. Although the assessee objected to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT for two-fold reasons, viz. (i) that the capital gain disclosed by the assessee was examined twice

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 :

house, remaining properties are commercial properties and are let out for commercial purposes. All details were furnished to the CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel for the assessee further took our attention to paper book filed by the assessee and referred

RAMA MOHAN SOMA,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HINDUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

house property and interest income. For the AY 2012-13 the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,04,480/-. The said return was processed by CPC. Later on, the case was reopened u/s. 147 based on the information received from ADIT(Inv) Tirupati that the assessee had lent money to one Sri A. Lakshmana

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

Housing Colony, Sanatnagar,\nHyderabad, vide a Sale Deed Document No. 2340 of 2014, dated\n10.12.2014, which was registered with the office of the Joint Sub-\nRegistrar-7, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, for a total sale consideration\nof Rs.60,00,000/- as against the SRO value of Rs.66,36,000/-\nwherein his share in the sale consideration was one-fourth. The\nA.O

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

property in the FY 2019-20 for this I have taken Home loan from the\nbank worth of Rs.2500000 and I have claiming home loan interest and principal\namount as deduction in my IT returns. I am working as a employee in private\norganisation since financial year 2017-18 and i have some savings so that i have\nplanned

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2018 was issued and served on the assessee on 30.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income

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

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

house” as provided in section 54F of the Act, therefore, no income was liable to be brought to tax in his hands under the head “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

VIDYUT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 13/03/2023 are bad in law, null & void and are liable to be quashed. Hence, the learned CIT(A) erred by confirming the income/additions made by the learned A.O in the invalid assessment order. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted

KAPIL FOOD AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act. This principle has been supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 21 CIT Vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which

KAPIL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,HANUMAKONDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act. This principle has been supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 21 CIT Vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act. This principle has been supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 21 CIT Vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which

KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.629/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

House, Hyderabad. Plot No.114, Phase – I, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033. PAN : AAACK8316L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR. सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 27/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: These cross

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.629/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

House, Hyderabad. Plot No.114, Phase – I, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033. PAN : AAACK8316L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR. सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 27/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: These cross

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

reassess is limited and based on the\nfulfilment of certain preconditions. (CIT v. Kelvinator of India\nLtd.)\"\n21. We shall now advert to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,\nin the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v.\nKalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC), that\nhas been relied upon

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

reassessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 01.03.2024 and the notice of demand dated 01.03.2024 Issued u/s 158 of the Act are also bad in law and unsustainable and the same, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit/NaFAC erred by making the additions

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

reassessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 01.03.2024 and the notice of demand dated 01.03.2024 Issued u/s 158 of the Act are also bad in law and unsustainable and the same, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit/NaFAC erred by making the additions