GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gains. The balance amount of Rs. 1 Cr which was not supported by the registered sale deed, the Ld. AO considered it as unexplained money received and assessed as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

gain adopting cost of acquisition and improvement at Rs.79,60,200/-. Ld. AO thereafter passed a consequential order dated 04.04.2025 determining the Long-Term Capital Loss at Rs.20,00,615/-. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty

VANGA JAIN BABU,DEVARAPALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TADEPALLIGUDEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain with respect to sale consideration (higher of AIR and ITR)”. The Ld. AO issued notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act on 29/7/2016 and the same was served on 7/8/2016. Due to change of incumbent, another notice U/s. 143(2) r.w.s 129 was issued and served on the assessee. Further, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act along

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

capital gains tax is leviable on a Joint Development Agreement that was cancelled and where no consideration was received by the assessee? Whether the penalty

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE 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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

capital gains as the assessee holds 50% of the share in the property. Thus, the Ld. AO raised a demand notice U/s. 156 of the Act and also initiated the penalty

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE 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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

capital gains as the assessee holds 50% of the share in the property. Thus, the Ld. AO raised a demand notice U/s. 156 of the Act and also initiated the penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA vs. SRI JIYYANA VENKATARAYUDU (HUF), KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 173/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu Tax, Circle-1, (Huf), Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aahhj3600A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains arising out of agricultural land sold through M/s. Sri Satya Sai Housing. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that as per section 187(3) of IDS, 2016 if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

capital gains tax, was cancelled by both the parties and since there was no construction at all on the said land, there is no proof that the appellant has received Rs.70.80 lakhs as per the documents filed by the Ld.AR of the appellant and the department also could not prove that the appellant has received this amount, the entire addition

MADHU DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Capital gains / loss on sale of property\". Ld. Assessing\nOfficer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during the course of assessment\nproceedings after examining the information called for, accepted the return of\nincome filed by the assessee.\nHowever, Ld. AO failed to record any\nsatisfaction regarding imposing of the penalty

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

penalty on the brokers involved in the trading\nobserved that these were nothing but accommodation entries. He also\nPage No. 5\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\nreferred to the statements recorded on oath by various stock brokers and\nconcluded that assessee has declared bogus long term capital gains

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

Capital Gains at Rs. 6,74,80,333/-. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assessee also claimed Rs. 39,39,656/- as deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. However, in the absence of any details for the investment as specified U/s. 54F of the act, the Ld. AO proposed to disallow the same. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed

P V RAGHAVULU,PATHEBADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.78/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) P.V.Raghavulu Vs. Income Tax Officer Eluru Ward-2 [Pan : Aaihp9021Q] Eluru अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Satyasai Rath,Cit-Dr

capital gains and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

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

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

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Capital gains / loss on sale of property”. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during the course of assessment proceedings after examining the information called for, accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. However, Ld. AO failed to record any satisfaction regarding imposing of the penalty

NYMISH KUNDUM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains and taxes paid accordingly. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the penalty levied by the Ld. AO-NFAC

VIJAY SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), 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.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

penalty on the long term capital gain of Rs.1,86,98,968/-. 10. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld.AO

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

penalty order, it is evident that the appellant was required to take the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act for computing the capital gains

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gains and other sources, filed return of\nincome for the A.Y. 2006-07 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited