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

transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such

SAROJA BAI THAKUR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

price fetched by the same. Section 50C(2) of the Act clearly states that where the assessee claims before the learned Assessing Officer that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the FMV Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 246 & 247/Hyd/2024 of the property as on the date of transfer

SAROJA BAI THAKUR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

price fetched by the same. Section 50C(2) of the Act clearly states that where the assessee claims before the learned Assessing Officer that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the FMV Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 246 & 247/Hyd/2024 of the property as on the date of transfer

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

prices less than FMV to a firm or company. The intent of legislation is to tackle transfer of shares and not the cases of primary allotment of the share. c) The assessee entered into an understanding with Kineta Global Limited and their promoters on 18-02-2010 for investing Rs. 50 crores for acquiring not less than 51% of Kineta

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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

transfer of commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

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 commercial space. g) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.3,65,20,662/- towards short term capital gains. 7.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos. 5 to 5.6 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.3,56,717/- as long term capital gain

SAI KEERTI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

transfer of property in the year\n2006-07 suffers any illegality or irregularity.\n34.\nNow coming to the applicability of the provisions under section 50C\nof the Act, a reading of the provisions under section 50C of the Act makes it\nclear that the unamended provision essentially required the transferor to\nadopt the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp

SUBBA RAJU CHEKURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 11(3), SIGNATURE TOWER, KONDAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Subba Raju Chekuri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(3), R/O. Hyderabad. Signature Tower, Kondapur, Pan : Aempc1025M. R.R. District, Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri H. Srinivasulu. Revenue By: Sri Aravindakshan, Sr. A.R. 12.09.2023 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2023

transfer the entire land at market price or stamp duty value U/s Soc. 10. Ld.A.O erred is not allowing deduction U/s 54F of the Act as the appellant invested a sum of Rs. 46,80,250 and on 21.11.2011 a sale deed was executed by the seller in favour of the appellant for a residential flat admeasuring 1440 SIFT

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.:

transfer of such immovable property. 9.1. In the instant case, though the agreement was made on 01/04/2011, the sale deed was executed on 14/11/2013. The assessee could not produce any proof that any part payment of the entire consideration was paid by way of Cheque / DD / RTGS etc. Therefore, in the absence of such proof, the assessee / AR was asked

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

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

price as fair market value whilst dealing with section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition. We find that the said learned co-ordinate bench has rather restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer as under : “8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The contention of the assessee that she has paid the sale

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

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

price as fair market value whilst dealing with section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition. We find that the said learned co-ordinate bench has rather restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer as under : “8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The contention of the assessee that she has paid the sale

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

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

price as fair market value whilst dealing with section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition. We find that the said learned co-ordinate bench has rather restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer as under : “8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The contention of the assessee that she has paid the sale