HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

house, therefore, no adverse inferences were liable to be drawn as regards his claim of exemption raised u/s 54F of the Act. Elaborating further, it was the assessee's claim that though as per the terms of the original “agreement to purchase” a Villa No. 48 was allotted to him by the builder, but thereafter due to some internal problems

JYOTHI BHANOTH ,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2014-15 Jyothi Bhanoth, Vs. Acit, Khammam. Circle-1, Pan: Anopb 4718 R Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

144A of the Act vide his order dated 29/12/2018. The value of the property was so arrived by the Revenue considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and keeping in view of its inherent disadvantages of the property. Therefore, even if section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is invoked, the sale consideration cannot

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

section 50C to this case and the total consideration is deemed to be the Market Value of the property which is at Rs. 4,39,23,056/-. But the assessee/AR argued that the market value of the property as on the date of agreement is much lower than the value as on the date of registration

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

144A directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim, after examining the facts and circumstances and also material on record, the learned CIT is totally incorrect to assume that the issue was not subject matter of original assessment. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the claim for improvement in the form of furniture and fittings allowed

INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

144A directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim, after examining the facts and circumstances and also material on record, the learned CIT is totally incorrect to assume that the issue was not subject matter of original assessment. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the claim for improvement in the form of furniture and fittings allowed