SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

sections 50C, 50CA.and 50D.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee being an NRI has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016 - 17 declaring an income of Rs.18,26,340/- towards income from house property and towards income from short term and long term capital gains

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

capital gains” in her hands. 8. The AO observed that out of the aforesaid property admeasuring 6453 sq ft. the assessee had sold 3030 sq ft in the year 2014, while for, the balance of 3423 sq ft was sold during the subject year. The AO observed that the deemed sale consideration of the subject property admeasuring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2, HYDERABAD vs. ARUDRA VELLANKI , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

gain in the hands of the assessee.” 4. Mr. Goutam invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion under challenge as follows : ITA Nos.516 & 517/Hyd/2021 ITA Nos.516 & 517/Hyd/2021 Mr. Goutam vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2, HYDERABAD vs. PADMAVATHI VELLANKI , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

gain in the hands of the assessee.” 4. Mr. Goutam invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion under challenge as follows : ITA Nos.516 & 517/Hyd/2021 ITA Nos.516 & 517/Hyd/2021 Mr. Goutam vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer