Dr. T. Achyutha Rao v. ACIT, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad

106 ITD 388Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#21895 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Dr. T. Achyutha Rao v. ACIT, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Nancy Divaker Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 853/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 53A

…mmeta Vs. ACIT, Circle – 11(1), Hyderabad [2018] 91 taxmann.com 360 dt.28.02.2018 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 4) CIT Vs. Harbour View [2019] 102 taxmann.com 185 dt.24.09.2018 of Kerlala High Court. 5) Dr. T. Achyutha Rao Vs. ACIT, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad [2007] 106 ITD 388 dt.20.09.2005 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 6) Decision of Authority for Advance Rulings of New Delhi in the case of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [2007] 164 taxmann.con 108 dt.30.08.2007. 6. The Revenue’s case in light of the above stated material is that the assessee had very well “transferred” its capital asset vide original development agreement on 04.03…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Nancy Divaker Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 852/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 53A

…mmeta Vs. ACIT, Circle – 11(1), Hyderabad [2018] 91 taxmann.com 360 dt.28.02.2018 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 4) CIT Vs. Harbour View [2019] 102 taxmann.com 185 dt.24.09.2018 of Kerlala High Court. 5) Dr. T. Achyutha Rao Vs. ACIT, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad [2007] 106 ITD 388 dt.20.09.2005 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 6) Decision of Authority for Advance Rulings of New Delhi in the case of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [2007] 164 taxmann.con 108 dt.30.08.2007. 6. The Revenue’s case in light of the above stated material is that the assessee had very well “transferred” its capital asset vide original development agreement on 04.03…

G Bhoopathi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1951/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Narasimham, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54F

…11-08-2008 as per the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) and (vi). AO also relied on the following decisions: (i) Chaturbhuj Dwaraka Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom); (ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (Advance Ruling) (294 ITR 196); (iii) Dr.T.Achutha Rao Vs. ACIT (106 ITD 388) (Hyd); (iv) K.Jeelani Basha Vs. CIT (256 ITR 0282) (Mad-HC); :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 1951/Hyd/2017 2.1. AO held that transfer took place in the financial year relevant to AY. 2009-10 and worked out the capital gains as under: Rs. Value of development agreement 1,77,61,100 land owner’s share 88,80,450 Assessee’s share 50% 44,40,275 Less: Indexe…