SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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.”

price of the land. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as per section 2(47) of the Act, executing of a GPA in favour of any entity or individual is not to be considered as a transfer. It was, thus, the Ld. AR’s claimed that there was never any kind of transfer of the subject

JAGADISHWAR BARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 69A of the Act; (ii) that the AO had exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny assessment and wrongly added the deposits made during the pre- demonetization period; and (iii) that the agreement of sale proved the source of the cash deposits. However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions of the assessee and upheld the assessment

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

price is paid\nby the buyer as per the potential use of the land and not for\nthe activities which were carried out by the assessee before\nthe transfer of the land. Merely carrying out the agricultural\nactivity on a non-agricultural land would not change the\ncharacter of the land as agricultural land. Therefore, once the\nland was undisputedly

DAKAPPAGARI NAVEEN KUMAR,MEDAK vs. ITO., WARD - 1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed

69A of the IT Act and\nsuch conclusion is not correct and hence it is liable to be deleted.\n5.\nThe Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Assessing\nOfficer erred in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80C of the\nIT Act for Rs.30,000/- without understanding the facts of the case\nand hence it is liable

SAMIUDDIN ASLAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

69A of the Act. The Ld. DRP-1 Bengaluru, vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the I. T., Act,1961 dated 30/12/2024 rejected the explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition proposed by the A.O. Consequent to the DRP directions, the A.O has passed the final assessment order under section 153C r.w.s. 144C

SAMIUDDIN ASLAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

69A of the Act. The Ld. DRP-1 Bengaluru, vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the I. T., Act,1961 dated 30/12/2024 rejected the explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition proposed by the A.O. Consequent to the DRP directions, the A.O has passed the final assessment order under section 153C r.w.s. 144C

SAMIUDDIN ASLAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

69A of the Act. The Ld. DRP-1 Bengaluru, vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the I. T., Act,1961 dated 30/12/2024 rejected the explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition proposed by the A.O. Consequent to the DRP directions, the A.O has passed the final assessment order under section 153C r.w.s. 144C

ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAJA BABU NIMMATURI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. Page 62 of 133 ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought