DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s Sunbeam Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. On 26.02.2019, search and seizure proceedings were conducted in the case of M/s Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. During the course of the search proceedings, a copy

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain is NIL after claiming exemption U/s. 54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain is NIL after claiming exemption U/s. 54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain is NIL after claiming exemption U/s. 54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain is NIL after claiming exemption U/s. 54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

Assessing Officer is not justified in charging the tax of Rs.8,24,000 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.4,86,160 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

Assessing Officer is not justified in charging the tax of Rs.8,24,000 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.4,86,160 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

capital towards construction of properties, Page 32/Para 2.33 of the CIT(A) order. We, thus, are of a firm conviction that, as the subject agreements were filed by the assessee company in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the grievance of the revenue, that the CIT(A) had admitted the same as additional evidence, which, in turn, is based

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

capital towards construction of properties, Page 32/Para 2.33 of the CIT(A) order. We, thus, are of a firm conviction that, as the subject agreements were filed by the assessee company in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the grievance of the revenue, that the CIT(A) had admitted the same as additional evidence, which, in turn, is based

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

capital gains at Rs. 1,43,459/-. The Ld. AO is in concord with the assessee’s explanation and completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs.3,55,510/- vide the assessment order dated 20/09/2019. Thereafter, the Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Guntur issued a penalty show 5 cause notice U/s. 274 r.w.s

BOKAM SANYASI NAIDU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), 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.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

capital gains. Further, the assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 1,14,43,118/- as exempt income. The return of income was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, as per the information available on record, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee along with other three persons sold certain properties for a total

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

block of assets while claiming depreciation on the balance WDV for the AY 2011- 12. The Ld. AR further pleaded that since the plant (stores written off) was sold to M/s. Rayalaseema Alkali Chemicals Ltd., Kurnool for Rs. 1,26,00,000/- during the AY 2012-13 before the finalization of audit of accounts, the balance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital towards construction of properties, Page 32/Para\n2.33 of the CIT(A) order. We, thus, are of a firm conviction that, as the\nsubject agreements were filed by the assessee company in the course\nof the assessment proceedings, therefore, the grievance of the revenue,\nthat the CIT(A) had admitted the same as additional evidence, which, in\nturn, is based