ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI BRIJ GOPAL P SHAH, HUF,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

246A(1) of the I.T. Act and orders under section 158C do not figure as applicable order from which it is very clear that all the orders made in pursuance of search and seizure are orders made U/s153A of I.T. Act. Hence the order of the AO. in framing the order under section 153A is in order. 5. The learned

GOVARDHAN NAIDU CHINTAKUNTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD - 1, PRODDUTUR

Bench: Us :

capital gains on the sale had to be considered on a substantive basis in the hands of the individual assessee. 12. Be that as it may, we find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal simply for want of prosecution without adverting to the specific issues based on which the impugned penalty order was assailed before him. Although

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (STCG): Rs.57,57,000/-; and (iii) income received from M/s. Vaishnavi Estates Private Limited: Rs.50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the latter on the said count itself had dismissed the appeal

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (STCG): Rs.57,57,000/-; and (iii) income received from M/s. Vaishnavi Estates Private Limited: Rs.50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the latter on the said count itself had dismissed the appeal

KOLAN VANAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

capital assets and the appellant has only 1/3rd share in the property 6) The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the gain is assessable as LTCG and the indexed cost of acquisition is allowable as deduction. 7) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on information that