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

long-term capital gains, ultimately the AO did not find any mistake in his original order thus accepted the income originally Page 10 of 11 ITA Nos 711 and 712 of 2018 P Ashok Kumar HUF Tirupati.. assessed. Since there was no escapement of income found by the AO, the reassessment becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the reassessment made u/s

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 Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others

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 Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others

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 Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others

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 Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. RASA AGROTECH PVT.LTD., SEC'BAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal as well as

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Rasa Agrotech Pvt Hyderabad. Ltd, Secunderabad.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee raises an objection that the reopening u/s 148 of the IT Act is not valid. However, the A.O held that the short term capital gain was treated as long term capital gain by the assessee and therefore, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147

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

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

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

CANARA SECURITIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Canara Securities Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hydereabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan – Aaacc8283G Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ramkishore Jhawar Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2019 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee is involved in transaction involving in CCM to absorb contrived losses from the other parties and AO came to the conclusion with the following observations in his order, which is reproduced below: "5.2 In this regard the details of the client code modification in assessee's account during FY 2009-10 were