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.

53A read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be held to be without any substance. The aforesaid conclusion of the CIT(A) certainly is capable of being examined in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika

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.

53A read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be held to be without any substance. The aforesaid conclusion of the CIT(A) certainly is capable of being examined in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika

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.

53A read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be held to be without any substance. The aforesaid conclusion of the CIT(A) certainly is capable of being examined in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika

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

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

53A of the Act. In this order, the AO has considered the claim of deduction under section 801A of the Act as he did in respect assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. The AO had called for complete details of the claim made and examined the same in the light of the provisions of the Act. The AO, like

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

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

reassessment or re-computation, as envisaged in Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant in this regard three orders passed by Hon’ble ITAT Benches viz., (i) ACIT Vs. Narendra N. Thacker [(2016) 45 ITR Trib 188 (Kol)]; (ii) unreported judgement in ACIT Vs. Sajjan Singh and (iii) unreported order in Arun Bansal, Delhi Vs. ACIT, Delhi