GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

TDS) does not alter the essential nature of the transaction, which is marketing of members agricultural produce. Further, we are of the view that the source of payment being a government agency acting as intermediary does not convert the mutual activity into one with non-members. In fact, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 84,676/- on 07/03/2020 and arrived at the balance tax liability of Rs. 2,89,080/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 5. Thereafter, the assessee, in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, had filed

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 84,676/- on 07/03/2020 and arrived at the balance tax liability of Rs. 2,89,080/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 5. Thereafter, the assessee, in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, had filed

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 84,676/- on 07/03/2020 and arrived at the balance tax liability of Rs. 2,89,080/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 5. Thereafter, the assessee, in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, had filed

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

section 148 of the IT Act assessee has declared the amounts received in his bank account and the TDS credited under his PAN - as his income, in order to put a quietus, which amounts otherwise are not assessee's income. 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's contention that Ld.AO ought to have exercised his powers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

TDS) on the payments made to M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises, as against the purchases made during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO, based on his conviction that 4 DCIT vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa the assessee has failed to justify the purchases of Rs. 4,99,65,247/-, passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023

TEKI VENKATA RAMA RAO,,KAKINADA vs. THE ITO,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.151/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Sri Teki Venkata Ramana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-2-10 (International Taxation) Seshasai Street Kakinada Ramarao Peta Kakinada, E.G.Dist [Pan :Affpt6413G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 10.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

TDS deductible by the assessee under section 195 of the Act was correctly made by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1) of the Act and rightly upheld by the learned CIT (Appeals) at Rs. 13,82,870 being 20.4% of the sale consideration of Rs. 61,62,500 and consequently dismiss this ground of the assessee. Since the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(g) 6 ITA Nos. 312-314/VIZ/2018 (M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool Trust) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act. Hence, we direct the A.O. to allow the exemption as claimed by the assessee and delete the additions made towards refund of excess amount to M/s. South India Corporation Ltd.” 11. By respectfully following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(g) 6 ITA Nos. 312-314/VIZ/2018 (M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool Trust) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act. Hence, we direct the A.O. to allow the exemption as claimed by the assessee and delete the additions made towards refund of excess amount to M/s. South India Corporation Ltd.” 11. By respectfully following

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.A.Rahim, I.T.P सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

14,77,837/-. Since the activities of the assessee are held to be in the nature of trade and commerce, the AO invoked the provisions of section 2(15) and held that the assessee does not qualify to be charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. 2.1. The AO verified the Form 26AS and from

LOKANADHA RAO BATHINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [Pan :Apqpb9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS was duly deducted and paid to the Central Government account and Form No.16B was duly issued to the seller. Thus, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.55,74,687/- out of the loans taken from the following persons Bathina Rajyalakshmi, wife 3 I.T.A. No.283/Viz/2023, A.Y.2016-17 Lokanadha Rao Bathina, Visakhapatnam Rs.7,00,000/-, G.Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad Rs.2

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 246, every appeal under this Act which is pending immediately before the appointed day, before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeals and which is so pending shall stand transferred on that date to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 246, every appeal under this Act which is pending immediately before the appointed day, before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeals and which is so pending shall stand transferred on that date to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 246, every appeal under this Act which is pending immediately before the appointed day, before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeals and which is so pending shall stand transferred on that date to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

TDS) were deposited, and only the balance amount of Rs. 28,41,320/- was received in his bank account. 4. The A.O observed, that the assessee while computing the “capital gain” on the sale of the subject properties during the year under consideration, had reduced the abovementioned payments aggregating to Rs. 9 crores (supra) as an expenditure that was claimed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar