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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

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

transfer of property, the manner thereby was that the parties have agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs whereas registered the property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,07,500/-. 15.5. The learned counsel for the assessee supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that initially parties were agreed for consideration of Rs.2.45 lakhs with certain terms and conditions

PRATHIMA RESORTS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

153D of the Act though\nsuch approval does not constitute an order passed\nunder the Act which could be a subject matter of\nrevision u/s 263 of the Act\n4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and\nunsustainable in law, as the base assessment order\npassed u/s 153C itself is void ab initio

PRATHIMA EGGSEL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed 4 ITA.Nos.1322 to 1327 & 1329, 1330/Hyd/2024 under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself

PRAYAGA GREEN MEADOWS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act. 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself is void ab initio

SPARK VIDYUTH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed 4 ITA.Nos.1322 to 1327 & 1329, 1330/Hyd/2024 under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself

ADRIJA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act. 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself is void ab initio

PRATHIMA RESORTS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed 4 ITA.Nos.1322 to 1327 & 1329, 1330/Hyd/2024 under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself

MSN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed 4 ITA.Nos.1322 to 1327 & 1329, 1330/Hyd/2024 under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act, though the powers of revision u/s 263 do not extend to such assessment order passed with the prior approval of the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. 3. The Ld. Principal CIT erred in law in setting aside the approval given by the JCIT

PRATHIMA EGGSEL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed 4 ITA.Nos.1322 to 1327 & 1329, 1330/Hyd/2024 under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself

DAKSHAYANI HORTICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

153D of the Act though such approval does not constitute an order passed under the Act which could be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act. 4. The order of revision u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, as the base assessment order passed u/s 153C itself is void ab initio