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

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

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding taxation of capital gain by extending the amplitude of section 2(47)(v) overlooking the fact that section 2(47)(v) being a deeming provision has to be construed strictly. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of the AO in regard

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain any advantage on account of developments that resulted on account of non-payment of self asst. tax. On the contrary, the Appellant had faced lot of pressure carrying the burden of payment of disputed tax for this long time." There is again no basis, for condonation but for sympathy and playing the victim card. The appellant is not even

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore

T. RAMESH (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

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 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the Appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which costed the builder Rs. 1.93 crores, and therefore