RAMA RAO GOTTUMUKKALA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

249] (AP), it was submitted that the ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 10 -: terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed

R. SUBBA LAXMI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent events

M.S. LAKSHMI BAI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent events

JILLELA DASARATHA REDDY, REP BY GPA HOLDER, J PEDDA VENKATA REDDY , HYDERABAD ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent events

VISWANATHA REDDY POTHAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent events

KHAMBHAMPATI JAYALAKSHMI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent events

NAVEEN KUMAR MUSINIPALLY,USA vs. ADIT (INT-TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

249 (A.P.) observed that, in terms of Development Agreement -cum- GPA dated 30.12.2015 and subsequent Supplementary Agreement dated 29.04.2016, the assessee has handed-over the possession of the property in exchange of built-up area to the builder which satisfies the conditions provided u/sec.2(47) r.w.s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus, capital gains arising on account

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

249 (AP)] has considered the development agreement of similar nature and upheld the levy of capital gain in the year of entering into the development agreement. Ld.CIT(A) also approved the same, stating as under: “15.1 It is further seen that the municipal plan was approved and building permission was issued on 06.01.2009 which is falling in the financial year

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

gain on account of foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs.15,46,428 as income from other sources; (ii) to disallow gratuity of Rs.1,32,95,577; and (iii) to disallow expenditure amounting to Rs.2,69,26,757 relatable to issue of foreign currency convertible bonds. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT under section

T. KASHINATH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. NAGRAJ (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. NARAYANA RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. NARSIMHA RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. PRABHAKAR RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. JAYA PRAKASH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. RAJESWAR RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98

T. BALAKRISHNA (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

3. Without prejudice to above, The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the asst. year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs.5.98