ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs APOORVA SAROVAR, KURNOOL

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri 9-1-85, Hukumpeta Kotta Road Near Silver Company Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: FPSPS5851B] Vs. Income Tax Officer Income Tax Office Koppugurana Building Siddhartha Nagar Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रा

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITAT, stating that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was based merely on system generated information, which is invalid and without any tangible material. In the grounds of appeal, it was mentioned that the

SRINIVASA RAO CHEEDELLA,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAPATLA

the ITAT.

RAJU JADA,KRISHNA DIST. vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has given five opportunities and also one show cause notice and required the assessee to establish the source of deposits and the amount paid to Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited. At the time of filing of

RAJU JADA,MANDA KRISHNA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATANAM

Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'ble (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'ble (Accountant Member)

NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TIRMULA SURYA KUMARI,SRIKAKULAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

OMMI SANDEEP,VIZIANAGARAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

TIRUMALA RAO BATTU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

the CIT(A). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter, on the said count itself, dismissed the appeal.

RIVER BAY CITY CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDRY vs ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)