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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital gains”. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was not raised by the assessee in his original return of income or the revised return, but it can still be raised, as the relevant material was available on record before the appellate authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and the Tribunal

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

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

short \"Ld. DR\") objected to the\nseeking of condonation of the delay involved in filing of the appeal\nby the assessee. We have heard the learned authorized\nrepresentatives of both parties qua the delay involved in filing of the\nappeal in the backdrop of the material available on record. We find\nthat the assessee in the present case before

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law. 5. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law. 5. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law. 5. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe

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

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).

short "NFAC"], Delhi, dated 26.08.2025 relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2 Subbalakshmi Pinnama 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer received information that, the assessee had been

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

Term Capital Gains, as added by the A.O.\n14. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have seen that the notices\nissued by the A.O. were never served on the Assessee, and such the\nassessment order was without jurisdiction.\n15 Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or\nat the time of the hearing.\"\n2. Succinctly stated

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