ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed
ITA 272/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2019AY 2014-2015
Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 56(2)(vii)
capital gain tax is not attracted. The C.O.No.109/VIZ/2018
(Y. Venkanna Choudary) transaction between the closer relatives should not be seen as introducing black money or evasion of the tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction is within the family and close relatives and covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(vii