INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

forwarded by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.07.2019. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 25.07.2019 [received in the O/o. Assessing Officer through emall on 11.09.2019] has furnished the objections for issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act. The objections filed by the assessee were rejected and the same was also intimated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

forwarded by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.07.2019. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 25.07.2019 [received in the O/o. Assessing Officer through emall on 11.09.2019] has furnished the objections for issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act. The objections filed by the assessee were rejected and the same was also intimated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

forwarded by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.07.2019. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 25.07.2019 [received in the O/o. Assessing Officer through emall on 11.09.2019] has furnished the objections for issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act. The objections filed by the assessee were rejected and the same was also intimated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

forwarded by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.07.2019. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 25.07.2019 [received in the O/o. Assessing Officer through emall on 11.09.2019] has furnished the objections for issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act. The objections filed by the assessee were rejected and the same was also intimated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer

MADDIMISETTI SRINIVASU,TANUKU vs. THE ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDARY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

carried on by him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of the previous year in which such stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred by him and for the purpose of section 48, the fair market value of the asset 3 ITA No.96/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Maddimsetti Srinivasu.,Komaravaram on the date of such conversion or treatment shall

MDR CRANES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

carried the\nmatter before the Tribunal by raising following grounds:-\n“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\nis contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of\nthe case.\n2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to\nhave deleted the entire addition of Rs.2,18,03,212 made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated in the return of income. b) The notice issued u/s 148A(b) is void ab initio as the grounds mentioned therein were

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carried out by you during the year. If any change occurred during the period, it should be indicated. 3. Copies of final account statements for the period i.e. balance-sheet, profit & loss a/c etc. including notes and annexures thereto. 4. Bank statements of all bank accounts for the period 5. Please furnish details of movable/immovable properties purchased/sold during the year

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

capital gain at Rs.1,60,917/- 8. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,74,470/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 10. As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

gains. Consequently, Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the resultant accretion on transfer to the subsidiary company as income from business of appellant. Further, it was also contended that the said land should not be treated as 'business asset' and thereby the resultant surplus should not be assessed as business income. 5 3.1. As per the profit & loss account

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

Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\n(assessee's share) framed the assessment.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide\nhis order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the same.\n5.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in\nappeal before us.\n6.\nWe have

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

Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\n(assessee's share) framed the assessment.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide\nhis order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the same.\n5.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in\nappeal before us.\n6.\nWe have

BALA VENKATA KATYAYANI DASU,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Bench: Us:

Loss account”, but, the same were separately disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for the subject year. The Ld. AR to buttress his claim that the aforementioned incomes were disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for the subject year, had taken us through the extract of the “return of income” that was placed

ANDHRA PAPER LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

carried out by the TPO. The TPO observed that the assessee is in this segment since 1964 and has been significant player long before it was acquired by the foreign AE. He further observed that the brand name or marketing intangible has been developed by the assessee only and not that of the AE. To ascertain the facts, TPO issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Capital Gains as directed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show-cause notice dated 27.12.2018, 31.05.2021 and 21.06.2021. In response, assessee cited various judicial pronouncements wherein the Ld. AO has failed to mark the proper limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act under which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Capital Gain of Rs.1,94,13,599/- which is disclosed in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In support of the above submissions, assessee filed relevant evidence in support Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy of the funds mobilised for investment in the Company Steel Exchange

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

carry forward in the assessment. Page No. 4 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A. No. 117/VIZ/2021& C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 M/s. Linton Projects Private Limited& Smt. Poosarla Satyavathi 6. The appellant may be permitted to submit the further information at the time of hearing of the case. 7. The order of the CIT (Appeals -1) is not justified in confirming the order

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

carry forward in the assessment. Page No. 4 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A. No. 117/VIZ/2021& C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 M/s. Linton Projects Private Limited& Smt. Poosarla Satyavathi 6. The appellant may be permitted to submit the further information at the time of hearing of the case. 7. The order of the CIT (Appeals -1) is not justified in confirming the order