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

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

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

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

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

price mentioned at Rs. 28,000/- per sq.yd. on 27/05/2010, but, on this day transfer of the property was not effected as per section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1853. The date of transfer shall be considered as 24th January, 2011 as the sale executed on 24/01/2011, in which, nothing was mentioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी. सं / Ita Nos.296, 297, 298, 299, 300 & 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

3&4/Hyd/2022 (Departmental appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15) 27. As stated earlier, the sale deed dated 2/1/2006 was submitted for registration before the sub registrar office on the day itself but for a variety of reasons registration was effected on 20/11/2013 vide the document No.7666/2013. Learned Assessing Officer is aware of all these facts, and as a matter

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

50C is bad in law. 2. Ld A.O erred in passing the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 U/s 144 in gross violation of principles of natural justice and it is bad in Law. 3. Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in upholding the exparte order of Ld A.O by passing an exparte order. The appellant is not well versed in operation

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.:

3,000/- per yard. As per the above facts the section 56(2)(vii)(b) will not be applicable in my case. So kindly consider the above facts and not raise tax in my scrutiny assessment. I am herewith enclosing the copy of agreement of the assets purchased.” 5. However, the ld. AO opined that the provisions of section

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

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

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 50C should not be applied w.r.t

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

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

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 50C should not be applied w.r.t

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

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

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 50C should not be applied w.r.t