MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section is valid and for the prior years, the taxability would arise in the year of execution of the agreement which was in A.Y. 2004-05 in the appellant's case. Thus the first transaction of sale, even if considered a capital asset, would only be liable for taxation in A.Y. 2004- 05 and not for the years under consideration

ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUBRAHMANYAM KOTIKALAPUDI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Subrahmanyam Kotikalapudi, Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA. Against the notice u/s 143(2) issued by the AO, the AR of the assessee filed the required information. 2.1 The AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54EC to the extent of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for one sale transaction i.e. sale property at Plot

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

Capital Gain” (LTCG) of Rs.6,04,32,280/-\narising from the sale of agricultural lands situated at Village:\nManchirevula falling within the Rajendranagar Municipality. The\nA.O. observed that the assessee had against the LTCG of Rs.6.04\ncrore (approx.) claimed exemptions under Section 54B

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

54B, 54C, 54G and 54GA of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer by way of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, asked information relating to the sale consideration for computing capital gains

KONDE SRISAILAM (HUF),,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF IT CIRCLE -8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 2(14) of the Act and hence, capital gains has arisen from said transaction and the family 4 I.T.A. No. 1001/Hyd/11 and others Kandada Babu Rao and others members of the groups who have sold the land are exigible to capital gain tax. Observing that none of the parties to the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, who have transferred

DAPPU NAVEEN KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 2(14) of the Act and hence, capital gains has arisen from said transaction and the family 4 I.T.A. No. 1001/Hyd/11 and others Kandada Babu Rao and others members of the groups who have sold the land are exigible to capital gain tax. Observing that none of the parties to the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, who have transferred

MALI CHANDRASEKHAR (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 2(14) of the Act and hence, capital gains has arisen from said transaction and the family 4 I.T.A. No. 1001/Hyd/11 and others Kandada Babu Rao and others members of the groups who have sold the land are exigible to capital gain tax. Observing that none of the parties to the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, who have transferred

DAPPU NARASIMHA ( LARGER HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 2(14) of the Act and hence, capital gains has arisen from said transaction and the family 4 I.T.A. No. 1001/Hyd/11 and others Kandada Babu Rao and others members of the groups who have sold the land are exigible to capital gain tax. Observing that none of the parties to the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, who have transferred

DAPPU RAMULU (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 2(14) of the Act and hence, capital gains has arisen from said transaction and the family 4 I.T.A. No. 1001/Hyd/11 and others Kandada Babu Rao and others members of the groups who have sold the land are exigible to capital gain tax. Observing that none of the parties to the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, who have transferred

SRI JILAKARA NARASIMHA, R.R. DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 2(14) of the Act and hence, capital gains has arisen from said transaction and the family 4 I.T.A. No. 1001/Hyd/11 and others Kandada Babu Rao and others members of the groups who have sold the land are exigible to capital gain tax. Observing that none of the parties to the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, who have transferred