SIVAPOTHULURU VEERAREDDY GADLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

50C of the Act is applicable to the assessee's case. 5.3. Further the assessee has submitted that since the agricultural land that was sold by the assessee was not having a proper approach road and the land was surrounded by the lands of the neighbors from all the sides, the land was sold for a price less than

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

50C of the Act would not apply in the appellant's case. 4.The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment completed u/ s 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2014 is invalid ab initio for the AO, having referred to the DVO as per the provisions of section 50OC (2) of the Act, has failed to follow

MAHMOOD HUSSAIN SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

50C when the property was referred to the Valuation Cell and the report was not received till the completion of the assessment proceedings.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, derives income from house property and real estate business, filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 on 13.09.2014, declaring a total

RAMESH MUNAIAH CHINTAKUNTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

50C of the Act market value adoption as per SRO value. 8. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that in respect of the indexed cost of acquisition in respect of this property, assessee computed the same at ₹ 15,62,774/-, whereas the learned Assessing Officer adopted ₹ 14,42,730/- and the learned CIT(A) on a perusal

UMA MAHESWARA RAO BODAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

disallowance of Rs.15.00 lakhs towards expenses of transfer while computing the Long-Term Capital Gain derived from the sale of property. The assessment has been subsequently reopened on the basis of reasons as per which income chargeable to tax has been escaped on account of under estimation of income derived from sale of property. Therefore, notice

VENKATA PRABHAKAR RAO AMANCHARLA ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1669/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amancharla Venkata Prabhakar Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Nellore Ward-5 [Pan : Agspa2284N] Nellore अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Vvsc Muralidhar Rao, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Aditi Goyal, Dr

section 50C of the Act, Rs.11,50,000/- towards disallowance of credit in the name of Shri K.Bhaskar Reddy, Rs.2.87

YADI REDDY SANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 50C(2) of the Act, in view of the objects raised by the Appellant. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the deductions amounting to Rs.54,79,067 claimed by the Appellant in respect of commission paid while acquiring the property

C.M. RAMESH, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

50C and interest expenditure disallowance for the purpose of computing assessees’ Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). His identical detailed discussion from paras 6 onwards holds that neither the Assessing Officer had examined or enquired the applicability of section

C.M. RAJESH, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

50C and interest expenditure disallowance for the purpose of computing assessees’ Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). His identical detailed discussion from paras 6 onwards holds that neither the Assessing Officer had examined or enquired the applicability of section

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 54 of the I.T.Act. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee during the course of proceedings despite repeated notices sent to the assessee. 4. ld.DR had drawn our attention to the finding of the ld.CIT(A), which are to the following effect:- 4.1 During the F.Y. 2003-04, the assessee had purchased

ANANTH VASUDEV NAIK ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5) , HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Anant Vasudeo Naik, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(5), Pan : Abgpn5360D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2007-08 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 01.06.2018 In Appeal No.10034/17-18/B2 Cit(A)-6, Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Assessee’S Instant Appeal Suffers From 514 Days Of Delay In Filing. Learned Counsel Submitted That Assessee Is Old Aged Person & Not At All Conversed With E-Proceedings & Could Not Track The Messages, Which Caused The Impugned Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal. The Same Are Unrebutted From The Revenue’S Side During The Course Of Hearing. Case Law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 Air 1353 (Sc) & University Of Delhi Vs. Union Of India, Civl Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 Dt.17.12.2019, Hold That Such A Delay; Supported By Cogent Reasons, Deserves To Be Condoned So As To Make Way Of The Cause Of Substantial Justice. We Accordingly Hold That Assessee’S Impugned Delay Of 514 Days Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate. The Same Stands Condoned. Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits Therefore.

section 50C adopts SRO price as the deemed consideration, the impugned penalty based thereupon does not deserve to be sustained. We further wish to reiterate the hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 58 (SC) that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every disallowance

BHARATHI MUKTEVI,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2016-17 Bharathi Muktevi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-12(1), Pan: Acipm 4867 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By Shri Djp Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2021 Order

section 50C. (7) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the specific ground that indexation benefit was not granted by the A.O. while computing the long term capital gains. (8) Any other ground that may be raised during the appellate proceedings with the prior permission from the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that

CHANDANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

50C on sale of an asset and thereafter allowed set off of business loss from the Short Term Capital Gain arising therefrom. Subsequently, he observed that the business loss was wrongly set off from short term capital gain even though the same was not allowable u/s 72 of the Act. Therefore, he issued notice

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

LEKHA REDDY METTU,USA vs. ACIT., INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

50C of the IT Act, 1961 for computation of Long Term Capital Gain is Rs.64,57,000/- and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and construction/improvement when the details become available. 4. During the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18, income chargeable to tax in the hands of assessee accrued

SUDHAKAR REDDY METTU,USA vs. ACIT., INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

50C of the IT Act, 1961 for computation of Long Term Capital Gain is Rs.64,57,000/- and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and construction/improvement when the details become available. 4. During the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18, income chargeable to tax in the hands of assessee accrued

ASHA NIMMAGADDA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

50C of the Act, merely because there occasioned some loss, it cannot be said that such a transfer is not a genuine one or that it is a colourable device. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) is not correct in observing that for want of compliance with the stamp and registration requirement, transfer did not take place