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

long term capital gain or the assessee on the sale of land property situated at Sy.No. 124/1, Shamshabad Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy Dist., is computed as follows by deeming the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty as the full value consideration received or accruing as result of the above mentioned sale. Value adopted for the Purpose of stamp

ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in\nrespect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement\nwith the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of\nacquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to\nscrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost\nclaimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were\nsubjected

GAJANAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment framed on 16.12.2011 disallowing/adding the short term capital gains of Rs.16,70,179 as not eligible to be set off against long term capital loss of Rs.5,18,09,507 (supra) under section 70(3) of the Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act') and upheld in the lower appellate order. 5. Learned counsel’s only argument in view

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

long term capital gain tax. 4.3. It was submitted by the ld.AR that from the notice, it is clear that the said notice was issued without obtaining the satisfaction of the CIT-II, Hyderabad / CBDT. The contention of ld.AR was that the notice was issued as if the re-opening was done within 4 years under clause (1) of section

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

long term capital gain tax. 4.3. It was submitted by the ld.AR that from the notice, it is clear that the said notice was issued without obtaining the satisfaction of the CIT-II, Hyderabad / CBDT. The contention of ld.AR was that the notice was issued as if the re-opening was done within 4 years under clause (1) of section

VASAMSETTY VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 153C of the Act. It was submitted that the registered sale deed though recovered from the residential premises of searched person cannot be said to be an incriminating document, per se as the said registered sale deed was available in public domain and therefore, cannot be said to be an incriminating document. Further, it was submitted that the said

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

long-term capital gains through managed trading of shares. Thus, the whole exercise shows a predetermined mind on the part of the A0 to issue notice under section 148 and complete lack of application of mind on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing without carrying out any further examination/verification and that too at the fag end of the limitation

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

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 14.03.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. ITA No.505/Hyd/2024 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.505/Hyd/2024 3 ITA No.505/Hyd/2024 4 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non-resident individual, had not filed any Return

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

long term capital gains (LTCG) on sale of Flat No.1, which was registered on 13/05/2017 for consideration of Rs.1.16 crores. However, the AO observed that the assessee had held the property for a period of less than three years and the capital gain derived therefrom was short term capital gain (STCG). Accordingly, the AO held a conviction that the assessee

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)

147 as the Long-Term Capital Gains were 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

Long Term Capital Gains Thus, the income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 48,81,590/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. We have heard

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

Long-Term Capital Gains\" (“LTCG\") on the sale transaction of the\nsubject property, therefore, the very basis for initiation of the\nassessment proceedings by the A.O. u/s 147 of the Act, wherein he\nhad failed to take cognizance of the said return of income filed by\nthe assessee is found to be based on misconceived facts. We are of\nthe

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. STYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

gains statement and the details of the stock purchased and sold by the assessee company in 5 ITA No.997/Viz/2024 & CO No.27/Hyd/2024 Stypack Private Limited respect of its transactions carried through its broker, viz. M/s RLP Securities Pvt. Ltd., it was found to have sold the shares of Steel Exchange India Ltd. (“SEIL”), as under: (i) On 20/11/2017 @Rs.120.52 per share

SANJAY GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-3(1), Pan: Acgpg 3696 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

capital gain (Rs. 2,42,12,430/-) was claimed as exempt U/s. 10(38). xi. Thus, it is clear tht Shri Sanjay Gupta, the assessee here and the husband of Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta has also claimed exemption U/s. 10(38) in A.Y. 2012-13 by claiming purchase and sale of shares with the same set of companies and during

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. MIKKILINENI NARENDRA KUMAR, SERILINGAMPALLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated for the A.Y. 2016-17 and a notice was issued on 30.03.2021. In response to this notice, assessee has not filed any return but submitted the information stating that he has not entered/executed any sale deed during the relevant A.Y. 2016-17 has only entered into a modified development Agreement cum general power

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).

u/s 148 and declared capital gains derived from transfer of capital asset and the same has been accepted by the A.O. without any adjustment. From the above, it is very clear that, the assessee was not having any intention to underreport the income and thus, the explanation of the assessee squarely falls under sub-section (6) of Section 270A

MAMATHA GUBBALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Long Term Capital Gains.\n10. The notices were never served on the Assessee, and such the\nassessment order is without jurisdiction.”\n13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance\n(No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the \"Proviso\" to section\n251(1)(a) of the Act, as per which the CIT(A) has been vested with