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

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

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

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

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

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

Gain\n(LTCG). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that\nas Village: Manchirevula falls within Rajendranagar Revenue\nMandal, therefore, it could not have been taken as a part and\nparcel of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat \"Rajendranagar” is also one of the Municipal Corporation.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that

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. 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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana

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

B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 1583/H/17 2010-11 T. Prabhakar Rao Income-tax (HUF), Sec’bad. Officer, Ward – PAN – AAAHT 5253 N 10(5), Hyd. 2 1584/H/17 -do- T. Ramesh (HUF), -do- Sec’bad PAN – AAAHT3794 G 3 1585/H/17 -do- T. Narayana