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

Bench: Us:

capital gain (LTCG), claimed the aforesaid payment of Rs. 9 crore (supra) as a deduction under Section 48(i) of the Act. 24. To sum up, as per the sale deed, dated 13.06.2019, and the MoU, the subject property was under encumbrance with SBI and Axis Bank, as it was provided as collateral by the assessee as a guarantor

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

10. This would also indicate that there was no failure to disclose any material fact. On that ground alone the notice dated 22nd March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Act has to be quashed and set side. So also, the impugned order dated 14th February 2022 disposing Petitioner's objections. Moreover, the other co-owner's case

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

10. This would also indicate that there was no failure to disclose any material fact. On that ground alone the notice dated 22nd March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Act has to be quashed and set side. So also, the impugned order dated 14th February 2022 disposing Petitioner's objections. Moreover, the other co-owner's case

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

10. This would also indicate that there was no failure to disclose any material fact. On that ground alone the notice dated 22nd March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Act has to be quashed and set side. So also, the impugned order dated 14th February 2022 disposing Petitioner's objections. Moreover, the other co-owner's case

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

10. This would also indicate that there was no failure to disclose any material fact. On that ground alone the notice dated 22nd March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Act has to be quashed and set side. So also, the impugned order dated 14th February 2022 disposing Petitioner's objections. Moreover, the other co-owner's case

SYED IBRAHIM SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

25 100% rise in cost inflation index = (25/75%) 33.33 Add : Base index in 1981-82 100.00 Fair market value in 1984 1950 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 worked out 1463 (1950 x 100/133.33) Cost of acquisition as the property is acquired before 01.04.1981 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 is worked out as under : (Rs.1463 x 650 sq.yards) Rs.9

SYED RAHMAN SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

25 100% rise in cost inflation index = (25/75%) 33.33 Add : Base index in 1981-82 100.00 Fair market value in 1984 1950 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 worked out 1463 (1950 x 100/133.33) Cost of acquisition as the property is acquired before 01.04.1981 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 is worked out as under : (Rs.1463 x 650 sq.yards) Rs.9

SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

25 100% rise in cost inflation index = (25/75%) 33.33 Add : Base index in 1981-82 100.00 Fair market value in 1984 1950 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 worked out 1463 (1950 x 100/133.33) Cost of acquisition as the property is acquired before 01.04.1981 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 is worked out as under : (Rs.1463 x 650 sq.yards) Rs.9

SYED YAKUB SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

25 100% rise in cost inflation index = (25/75%) 33.33 Add : Base index in 1981-82 100.00 Fair market value in 1984 1950 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 worked out 1463 (1950 x 100/133.33) Cost of acquisition as the property is acquired before 01.04.1981 Fair market value as on 01.04.1981 is worked out as under : (Rs.1463 x 650 sq.yards) Rs.9

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 2(1-A) being situated within 8 kms. of municipal limits. Transaction was therefore, to realize the maximum from out of the capital asset. Profits, therefore, not income from adventure in the nature of trade but capital gain.” “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the selling of own land

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

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

gains while filing the return of income during the impugned assessment year. He therefore pleaded that since the source of investments made by the four shareholders are explained, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. 20. Per contra, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the sale prices of the shares

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

gains while filing the return of income during the impugned assessment year. He therefore pleaded that since the source of investments made by the four shareholders are explained, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. 20. Per contra, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the sale prices of the shares

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

iii. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Firm engaged in the business of Cotton Trading & Ginning business along with investment in Films. In this case, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during

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

iii. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Firm engaged in the business of Cotton Trading & Ginning business along with investment in Films. In this case, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during

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

iii. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Firm engaged in the business of Cotton Trading & Ginning business along with investment in Films. In this case, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during