UPPADA KESAVAJANARDHANA RAO,FLORIDA, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

natural justice. 10. Further the Ld.AR also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated Ground No. 4 with respect to the inclusion of cost of land in the sale consideration while computing the capital gains

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

capital gains”\non the compulsory acquisition of the subject lands that was offered by\nhim as his income in the return of income. In the meantime, the tax\nconsultant advised the assessee to file another appeal before the CIT(A)\nassailing the impugned intimation passed u/s 143(1), dated\n28.02.2023. Accordingly, the assessee filed another appeal before the\nCIT

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]

gains on conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade and ii) on the sale of plots out of stock-in-trade as business income as evident from the Profit and Loss account. However, the AO omitted to examine the same and passed assessment order. Thus, held that the assessment order passed

BODDAPALLI HEMA SUNDARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

capital gains for the property sold by the assessee. The assessee\nbefore us has filed the bank statements and the documents while praying for\nadmission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. We therefore\nin order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by following the\nprinciples of natural justice

GADIRAJU JHANSIRANI,CHINNAMIRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Gadiraju Jhansirani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinnamiram. Ward-2, Pan: Bqjpg8177J Bhimavaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains at Rs. 89,79,885/- by granting exemption U/s. 54F of the Act for only one flat as against the eligible eight flats. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. 6. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has passed ex-parte

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains does not arise, thereby nullifying the basis for the imposition of penalties for alleged concealment. 5. In the light of the above ground and other reasons the appellant earnestly prays for the impugned order to be set aside in the interest of justice.” 6. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted before us that

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)

natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma AIR 1996 SC 1669 that violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate proceedings? 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified

VIJAYRATNA VEERA KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

capital gains with respect to the assessee. The Ld.AO thereafter initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee

LAKSHMI TANUJA SUGGUNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

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

capital gain. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not furnish the return or requested information. Consequently, the AO proceeded with a best judgment assessment under section 144.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that while the AO and CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with notices. However, in the interest of substantial justice and to adhere

SHAMROCK APPARELS,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.346/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2023-24) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(1) Shamrock Apparels D.No. 9-29-20, 2Nd Floor Income Tax Office Siripuram, Visakhapatnam Pratyakshakar Bhavan Pin Code: 530003 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acpfs3513B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

capital gains by erroneously computing the indexed cost of acquisition. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. He further pleaded that the assessee could not respond

YALAVARTHY PADMA PRIYA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 350/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Yellavarthy Padma Priya V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-6-6/5, Flat No. 401 C.R. Building, M.G. Road Sri Sai Plaza, Basavapunnaiah Street Vijayawada Gunadala Vijayawada – 520005 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adapy6673L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains: i. Expenses for transfer: Rs.2,00,000 ii. Cost of improvement (indexed value): Rs.1,36,91,892 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. With respect to Ground No. 2, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] argued

MANGAMMA CHIRUMAMILLA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gain, without reducing the cost of purchase of the same immovable property. The Ld.AO should have considered about past savings and agricultural income before making the addition of cash deposits of Rs.10,00,000/-. It was mentioned before the Ld.CIT(A) that the notices issued u/s 148A(b) are not correct, because the income chargeable to tax, which

LAKSHMI PRASUNAMBA KODALI,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 279/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Lakshmi Prasunamba Kodali, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Cxrpk7177G Circle-International Tax, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri S.V. Rao Associates ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Capital Gain [“LTCG”] from the sale of immovable properties and income from other sources as interest from NRO accounts. The assessee has e- filed his return of income for the AY 2019-20 on 29/05/2019 by declaring total income of Rs. 1,22,28,710/-. Subsequently, the assessee has revised the return of income

NAGESH BABU VALIVETI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Bles & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.9/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Accpv7063J Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/04/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

natural justice. 5. The Addl/JCIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the NRI seller of the property filed a return of income declaring capital gains

GARAPATI VEERA SWAMY,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.159/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Garapati Veera Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-10-1302 Ward (International Mahalaxmi Nagar Taxation) Road No.4 Kakinada Tadepalligudem [Pan : Brxpg9288B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains at Rs.17,07,810/- and on appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO. The only contention of the assessee is that the assessee purchased the flat at initial stages of commencement of construction and incurred expenditure for construction of the flat and sold a fully constructed flat. The only contention

SUDHAKARA RAO POTNURU,SRIKAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sudhakara Rao Potnuru Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.13-128, Jogipeta Street Ward-1, Palakonda Road Narasannapeta Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aelpp5479F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains” at Rs.4,59,182/- and “other Sources” at Rs.8,106/- . The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) and selected for scrutiny to examine the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

RAM PRASAD SOODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.13/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ram Prasad Sooda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.39-7-39/1, Sector-7 Ward-2(1) Murali Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Amups8258A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

natural justice and accordingly order deserves to be quashed. 3 I.T.A. No.13/Viz/2024, A.Y.2014-15 Ram Prasad Sooda,Visakhapatnam 4. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in levy penalty of Rs.10,97,703/- under head capital gains

CHIGURUPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, 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.202/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Dr.No.32-41-47/28, Near Library Ward-2(2) Machavaram Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan : Abjpc1799A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains by the assessee. It is evident 6 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2023, A.Y.2012-13 Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad., Vijayawada from the record that the valuation report was issued by the DVO with reference to the letter submitted by the AO dated 30.12.2019. But the Ld.CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without considering the valuation report. The Ld.AR therefore pleaded before the Tribunal that