GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

54F of the Act of Rs.16,29,727/- pertaining to the STCG arising on the transfer of 517.87 sq yds of land (out of 1041.34 sq yds). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/09/2022, before the CIT(A) but without success. 9. The assessee being aggrieved

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer of Capital Asset the assessee owned only one residential house (@ Avanthi Nagar). The assessee sold the capital asset and invested the proceeds in a new residential house property and thereby fulfilled the conditions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to claim exemption. Hence, the intention of the CIT (A) is totally wrong, bad & illegal. The Appellant

MAHARSHI GOGINENI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

price by payment of kind or adjustment of old debt or other monetary considerations. It was observed that if you sell a house and make profit, pay Caesar (State) but if you buy a house or build another and thereby satisfy Page 4 of 8 the conditions of Section 54, you were exempt. The purpose was plain; the symmetry

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

54F. For all the above reasons discussed above the request of the assessee vide his letter dated 11.12 2017 received in this office on 15.12.2017 to consider the receipts from the project as capital gains is hereby rejected and the receipts from the project are treated as business income only and assessment is completed accordingly and penalty proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

section, hold that the fact of utilization of sale proceeds in property, though not registered during the specified period would qualify for the benefit of reinvestment.-- 12.4 For availing exemption u/s 54F, the net consideration should be invested in specified asset before the date of filing return u/s 139. It was held in Nipun Mehrotra vs. ACIT

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

Section 54F allows exemption of capital gains if the net sale consideration from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (other than a residential house) is invested in the purchase or construction of one residential house within the prescribed time limits. The "cost of the new asset includes both the purchase price

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

Section 54F allows exemption of capital gains if the net sale consideration from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (other than a residential house) is invested in the purchase or construction of one residential house within the prescribed time limits. The \"cost of the new asset includes both the purchase price

SUBBA RAJU CHEKURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 11(3), SIGNATURE TOWER, KONDAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Subba Raju Chekuri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(3), R/O. Hyderabad. Signature Tower, Kondapur, Pan : Aempc1025M. R.R. District, Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri H. Srinivasulu. Revenue By: Sri Aravindakshan, Sr. A.R. 12.09.2023 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2023

54F of the Act. 6. Ld A.O erred in computing the capital Gains on transfer of rights on immovable property at a sum of Rs. 46,74,945. The appellant is not the legal owner of the property. 7. Ld A.O failed to appreciate that the appellant was only an agreement holder cum GPA and the provisions of section

NEMI CHAND,GUDUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

54F of the Act is infructuous and is dismissed. Thus grounds of appeal no. 5 & 6 are dismissed. 6.3 Ground of appeal No. 7: The ground of appeal No. 7 relates to charging interest under section 234C. 6.3.1 This ground pertains to appellant's contention that AO wrongly charged interest 234C of the Act. Charging of such interest is consequential