DR. K.VANAJA, WARANGAL,HANAMKONDA vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gains ignoring the deemed value of purchase consideration of the property in question as adopted by the SRO at the time of acquiring the said property. I.T.A. Nos. 1019 & 1020/Hyd/2016 :- 4 -: 2. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer to determine the correct value of deemed sale consideration

DR. M. MUNIPRASAD, WARANGAL,HANAMKONDA vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gains ignoring the deemed value of purchase consideration of the property in question as adopted by the SRO at the time of acquiring the said property. I.T.A. Nos. 1019 & 1020/Hyd/2016 :- 4 -: 2. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer to determine the correct value of deemed sale consideration

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

142A of the Act. Since the issue is settled by the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, for earlier assessment years (supra), in our considered view, on the issue of depreciation on film software library, there is no disputed that, appellant company is eligible for depreciation @ 25% as applicable to an “Intangible Asset”. However, on the issue of valuation of film

KHAIRUNNISA,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

capital gains. Hence, notice u/s 148 of the Act dt.16.03.2016 was issued and served on 17.03.2016. As there was no response from the assessee, again notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. As the assessment was getting barred by limitation of time by 31.12.2016 and due to assessee’s non-compliance, Assessing Officer finally

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gaining momentum in the years 1995 to 2000 and regional language television has grown from 2001-02. UKM & UKTV, are one of the earliest production houses with large base of satellite rights in feature films and tele-software and thus have a strong foothold in the TV market. The proportion of advertisement revenue attributable to the programmes produced

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains income and unsecured loans 3 which were duly reflected in the statement of affairs of the relevant assessment years. He also claimed exemption towards possession of gold for the family members as per the guidelines of CBDT. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee has not adduced any evidence like bills / vouchers, bank payments etc., with regard