NIMMATOORI SULOCHANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital 8 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 gains was made during the assessment proceedings too. The Jt./Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad further noted that, the Assessing Officer at para 8.4 of the assessment order categorically rebutted the claim with the assertion that, the said villages are urban areas as they are a part of Hyderabad Metropolitan Region notified

GOPINATH KANDURI ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, KADAPA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains, we are of the considered opinion that it constitutes sufficient cause, and while following the provisions under section 273B

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJA BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.Nos.596 & 597/Hyd

capital gain, she was\nunder the bonafide belief that, provisions of Sec.269SS of\nthe Act would not apply. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-2,\nHyderabad after considering relevant submissions of\nassessee and also by following judicial precedents including\nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of\nP. Bhaskar vs., CIT (supra) and the Judgment

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJABABU L/R BY ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain, she was under the bonafide belief that, provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act would not apply. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, 18 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 Hyderabad after considering relevant submissions of assessee and also by following judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of P. Bhaskar

NIMMATOORI RAMESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain, she was under the bonafide belief that, provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act would not apply. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, 18 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 Hyderabad after considering relevant submissions of assessee and also by following judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of P. Bhaskar

DAMODAR RAO BIBINAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Damodar Rao Bibinagar, Vs. The Additional 1-8-74/6, Commissioner Of Income Chikkadapally, Tax, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500020. Pan : Afjpb5620F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/12/2023

section 273B of the Act, before sustaining the penalty. 4. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had admitted sale consideration which was almost double the Card Value of Stamp authorities, offered the sale to capital gains

KALAWATHI BAGAYATH,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital asset(s) is only land and building than such a right.3.We further find that the assessee has placed reliance on (i) Smt. D. Anitha vs. ITO reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 538 (Hyd. Trib); (ii) Tummala Vidyapal Reddy vs. ITO (ITA No. 48/Hyd/2018); (iii) ITO vs. V. Tara Chand Jain [2015] 63 Taxmann.com 86 (Jaipur Trib.); (iv) Smt. Devidraben

KALAWATHI BAGAYATH,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital asset(s) is only land and building than such a right.3.We further find that the assessee has placed reliance on (i) Smt. D. Anitha vs. ITO reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 538 (Hyd. Trib); (ii) Tummala Vidyapal Reddy vs. ITO (ITA No. 48/Hyd/2018); (iii) ITO vs. V. Tara Chand Jain [2015] 63 Taxmann.com 86 (Jaipur Trib.); (iv) Smt. Devidraben

JAYARAM BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains of Rs.9,85,930/- and tax and interest totalling to Rs.1,68,150/- was paid and proof enclosed. 7(iii) In the light of contentions, raised by the assessee that the amount of cash received by him is not a loan or deposit, but sale consideration received on sale of immovable property and that provisions of section 269SS