MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1A) of section 17 provides that the document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property, for the purpose of section 53A of the TP Act, 1882, shall be registered. There was simultaneous amendment to the provisions of section 49 of the TP Actby deleting the words “or” as evidence of part performance of a contract

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub-section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub-section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub-section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub-section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment

VASAMSETTY VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 153C of the I.T. Act. However, the assessee filed a return of income on 24.03.2018 for the assessment year 2016-17 wherein capital gains of Rs.6,18,202 are disclosed in the schedule CG of the return as under : Full value of consideration Rs.1,58,22,000 Less: Cost of acquisition with Rs.20,66,447 indexation Less : Cost

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

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

1A) (c) proviso, clause ii\nare identical to items (a & b) respectively of section 2 (14) (iii).\n11.\nThe Tribunal further observed as follows at Para Nos.77 to 84:\n77.\n\"Now undisputedly, the land in question lies in village Khajurala,\nwhich falls in Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala and is more than 2\nkilometers in all directions, from the municipal

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain for taxation and not claimed any exempt income u/secs.10(34) and 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once there is no exemption of any income, then, expenses relatable to said income should be allowed in total. The learned PCIT, without appreciating these facts, has simply set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

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

1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression “of the nature referred to in Section 53A” in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

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

1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression “of the nature referred to in Section 53A” in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive