Case LawHigh Court › Itta/493/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/493/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri O.v.ramana Reddy

High Court 30 Jul 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/493/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri O.v.ramana Reddy
Date of order
30 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/493/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri O.v.ramana Reddy, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.493 OF 2014 DATED:30.7.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIII.T. Towers, A.C. GuardsHyderabad … Appellant And O.V. Ramana Reddy (HUF) … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.493 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted on thefollowing suggested questions of law, against the impugned judgmentof the learned Tribunal dated 25.10.2013 in relation to assessmentyear 2008-2009. i.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the ratesadopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax[Appeals] to determine the capital gains, when the AssessingOfficer computed the capital gains adopting the fair marketvalue obtained from the Sub-Registrar Office for determiningthe cost of acquisition? ii.In the facts and in the circumstances of the case whetherthe order of the Hon’ble ITAT is arbitrary and perverse andhence liable to be set aside? The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the materialreached the valuation of the property. By doing so, the Tribunalobserved as follows: “Therefore, considering the fact that the assessee’s propertyis situated at a prime location in Banjara Hills, which is just half akilometer away from Masab Tank, the Fair Market Value adopted bythe CIT(A) at Rs.900 per sq. yard for the land and Rs.100 per sq. ftfor the built up area appears to be reasonable and cannot be calledinto question.” Since the decision arrived at was based not on unacceptable material, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 30.7.2014bnr
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan