KRISHNA PRIYA PARVATHANENI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , VIJAYAWADA

ITA 306/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 August 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act was not applicable for AY 2017-18, as the amendment came into effect from April 1, 2017. Therefore, the tax should be computed at 30%.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income tax return for AY 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits and long-term capital gains. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the applicability of the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE for AY 2017-18. The assessee also challenged additions for unexplained cash deposits and long-term capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE

PER MANJUNATHA G, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1086964867(1) dated 06-Mar-2026 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. ITA 306/VIZ/2026 KRISHNA PRIYA PARVA

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →