ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the grounds nos.3 and 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed, as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.690/Hyd/2022

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)

Section 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

SIVA SHANKER REDDY GANDLURU, 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

House Property Rs. 10,92,938/- Capital Gains Rs. 21,59,554/- Income from Other Sources Rs. 21,710/- Gross Total Income Rs. 45,60,602/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 4.0. The long term capital gain admitted by the assessee was offered on the sale of his share of property of land admeasuring Ac 4.14 Gts (which the assessee

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

House Property Rs. 10,92,938/- Capital Gains Rs. 21,59,554/- Income from Other Sources Rs. 21,710/- Gross Total Income Rs. 45,60,602/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 4.0. The long term capital gain admitted by the assessee was offered on the sale of his share of property of land admeasuring Ac 4.14 Gts (which the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: (c)any property, other than immovable property,— (A)without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which

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.:

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

DR. K.VANAJA, WARANGAL,HANAMKONDA vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

property at Tirupathi being residential house on 22-03-2007 for a consideration of I.T.A. Nos. 1019 & 1020/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -: Rs. 26 Lakhs and offered Short Term Capital Gain, taking the cost of purchase on 17-11-2005 at about Rs. 24 Lakhs. The capital gains offered was Rs. 88,565/- in each case. In the course of scrutiny proceedings

DR. M. MUNIPRASAD, WARANGAL,HANAMKONDA vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

property at Tirupathi being residential house on 22-03-2007 for a consideration of I.T.A. Nos. 1019 & 1020/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -: Rs. 26 Lakhs and offered Short Term Capital Gain, taking the cost of purchase on 17-11-2005 at about Rs. 24 Lakhs. The capital gains offered was Rs. 88,565/- in each case. In the course of scrutiny proceedings

POTTABATHINI SUDHARSHAN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2011-12 Pottabathini Sudarshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(4), Pan: Ahups 5683 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

50C of the Act. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not considering the value of the property sold as per the certificate issued by SRO. 4. The Ld. First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that Rs. 36,00,000/- adopted in the sale deed is the value of the entire property whereas the property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD vs. VANKAYALAPATI KIRMAYEE, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

house property in the year 2008 from D.Shyamala for a consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-. Later on, the assessee has entered into a sale deed for a consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for sale of the above property as against market value of the property at Rs.3,05,58,000/-, on which stamp duty is paid. The Assessing Officer

VANKAYALAPATI KIRMAYE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

house property in the year 2008 from D.Shyamala for a consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-. Later on, the assessee has entered into a sale deed for a consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for sale of the above property as against market value of the property at Rs.3,05,58,000/-, on which stamp duty is paid. The Assessing Officer