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

short term or 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

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

short term or 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

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

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

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

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

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

S HARINATH CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

short term capital gain. He submitted that this assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act and that the CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee. Therefore, according to him, the assessment order dated 24/12/2009 has already merged with the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, it cannot be reopened

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

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. 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

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

short ‘the Act’) and there is no 143(3) assessment in this case. 2.1 Subsequently, the AO received specific information that the assessee had contrived losses by using Client Code 2 I.T.A. No. 2321Hyd/18 Canara Securities Ltd., Hyd. Modification (CCM) facility and based on the information, AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s

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

short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. We notice from a perusal of the assessees’ pleading in the instant twin appeals that it has challenged validity of Section 148/147 proceedings on various facets followed by the issue on merits that the impugned long term capital gain’s addition of Rs.37,00,000/- each has been wrongly made

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

short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. We notice from a perusal of the assessees’ pleading in the instant twin appeals that it has challenged validity of Section 148/147 proceedings on various facets followed by the issue on merits that the impugned long term capital gain’s addition of Rs.37,00,000/- each has been wrongly made

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

INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

short term capital gains while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2009. 8. Subsequently, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax passed order u/s.263 of the Act on 30.03.2012, setting aside the assessment order dated 31.12.2009 directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income of the assessee after examining in detail, the claim made

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

short term capital gains while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2009. 8. Subsequently, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax passed order u/s.263 of the Act on 30.03.2012, setting aside the assessment order dated 31.12.2009 directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income of the assessee after examining in detail, the claim made

D. HARI PRASAD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. D. Hari Prasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-1-103/9, Flat No.503, Ward-11(2), Sai Prasanna Towers, Hyderabad. Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. Pan: Aefpd 6589 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

147 by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee, along with another individual i.e., Sri R.V.K. Varma, had sold a house property bearing Municipal No.8-2-293/82/L/28/A/2 on plot No.28/A/2 admeasuring 600 square yards located in Survey No.403/1 of Shaikpet Village and Survey No.101/1 of Hakimpet Village of Sri Venkateswara Cooperative

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 B) On verification of the computation of total income, P & L account and Balance Sheet, it is observed that the assessee company has debited an amount of Rs.66,15,891/- towards loss on sale of assets. However, the assessee had added back the same as inadmissible in the computation of total income

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

Bench: Us.

Term Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) was computed short while framing the original assessment, initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147