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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

House Property at ₹ 52,01,609/-, interest income to the tune of ₹ 34, 866/-and income from capital gains amounting to ₹ 9,56,412/-. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 28/3/2014, declaring an income of ₹ 1,70,92,890/-. Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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

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

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

SRI VENKATESWARA COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Venkateswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative House Ward 14(2) Building Society Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeas7809L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: N O N E Revenue By: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 3.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On 6.11.2023 For Which Notice Was Duly Served On The Assessee Through Rpad & The Acknowledgment Is Placed On Record. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Nor Any Page 1 Of 6

property admeasuring 150 sq. yards at MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards for Rs.7,50,000/- whereas the value adopted by the SRO for charging stamp duty was Rs.60,00,000/-. We find the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, determined the capital gain at Rs.60.00 lakhs which has been

GOKUL PRASAD PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

house property situated at No.I-8-450/1/A28, Indian Air Lines Employees Colony, Secunderabad to his wife, Smt. T.S. Mohana, vide a registered Gift Settlement Deed No. 1236/2001, dated 17.09.2001. Subsequently, the said property was sold by Smt. T.S. Mohana (supra) to Smt. B. Bharathi for a consideration of Rs. 8 lacs, vide registered sale deed No. 1708 of 2003, dated