RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 147 rws 144 & 1448 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

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 :

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment which comes to his notice, subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. From the plain reading of section 147 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that there should be reasonable belief of escapement of income from tax and such reason to believe

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

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

54F: Rs.61,03,380/-, vide his order passed under section 147 5 Tulasi Chamarthy vs. ITO r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 29/02/2024 and determined the short 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

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

Bench: Us.

Section 54F of the Act was not verified 9 Himsagar Krishna Vs. Pr. CIT, Tirupati by the AO while framing the reassessment vide his order passed 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

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.

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 “(a) That notice u/s

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.

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 “(a) That notice 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.

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 “(a) That notice u/s

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.

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 “(a) That notice u/s

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

reassessment proceedings only in faceless manner. Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Telangana High Court in the batch of Writ Petition No.25903, in the matter of Ravindra Reddy and others dated 14.09.2023.” 7. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to ground no.6 submitted that, the Assessing Officer has erred in law, in not following the provisions of section

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

reassessment proceedings only in faceless manner. Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Telangana High Court in the batch of Writ Petition No.25903, in the matter of Ravindra Reddy and others dated 14.09.2023.” 7. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to ground no.6 submitted that, the Assessing Officer has erred in law, in not following the provisions of section

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

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.Sunder Singh

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received

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

SANJAY KUMAR SANGHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2012-13 Sanjay Kumar Sanghi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 12(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5491R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/03/2022

54F, which is a plausible method. Therefore the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, order under section 263 is bad in law. 8. For these and such other grounds that may I General be urged at the time of hearing your appellant prays that the order under

MURARI SUBHA RAO,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 (Through Video Conference) Murari Subba Rao, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 13(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadpm 2285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

54F made by the assessee was rejected without adducing proper reasons. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. AR made elaborate arguments on each of the aforesaid technical issues challenging the validity of reopening of assessment together with its supporting case laws. 3.1 We find that