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

Bench: Us:

capital gain” on the sale of the subject properties during the year under consideration, had reduced the abovementioned payments aggregating to Rs. 9 crores (supra) as an expenditure that was claimed by him to have been incurred “wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer” under section 48(i) of the Act. The A.O. disallowed the claim observing

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

29,10,250/- made u/sec. 54F of the Act by Assessee and finally computed the long term capital gain of Rs. 3,50,00,300/- and added to the income of the Assessee . The AO also disallowed deduction of Rs. 92,79,935/- as claimed u/sec. 54B of the Act and to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- claimed exempted

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

section 96 of REFTLAR Act, 2013. 3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the land in question which was subjected to compulsory acquisition under National Highways Act, 1956 was an agricultural land as per the revenue records and hence the subject transfer is not taxable as per the provisions of income-tax Act.” Smt. Hema Latha

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

gains was invested in construction of a new residential house at Door No.22C-13-21, Eluru. The said building consists of ground floor plus three floors. Ground and first floor were commercial and second and third floors are residential units. The assessee stated that she has constructed the ground and first floor from 21.11.2011 to 07.06.2012 and second and third floors from

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

gains was invested in construction of a new residential house at Door No.22C-13-21, Eluru. The said building consists of ground floor plus three floors. Ground and first floor were commercial and second and third floors are residential units. The assessee stated that she has constructed the ground and first floor from 21.11.2011 to 07.06.2012 and second and third floors from

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

10. Per contra, Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of IT Rules, 1963 on the ground that, once the assessee has not challenged the findings of the learned CIT(A) and legal ground, then, the assessee cannot be permitted to file petition under Rule

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

10. Per contra, Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of IT Rules, 1963 on the ground that, once the assessee has not challenged the findings of the learned CIT(A) and legal ground, then, the assessee cannot be permitted to file petition under Rule

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

10. Per contra, Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of IT Rules, 1963 on the ground that, once the assessee has not challenged the findings of the learned CIT(A) and legal ground, then, the assessee cannot be permitted to file petition under Rule

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. Per contra, Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of IT Rules, 1963 on the ground that, once the assessee has not challenged the findings of the learned CIT(A) and legal ground, then, the assessee cannot be permitted to file petition under Rule

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARIPALLI VIMALA DEVI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

29,225/- and Rs. 52,21,220/- respectively against the Doc. No. 98/2004 and 3772/2004. The property was purchased on 9/1/2004 and 30/08/2004 respectively. Subsequently, during the year 2007 the property was mortgaged with State Bank of India against the term loan of Rs. 3 Crs granted to M/s. Amaravathi Inn Pvt Ltd., wherein the assessee and her late husband

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

29 shareholders are relatives and friends of the Directors who have invested in the company. Ld.AR further conceded that the Ld.AO has issued summons under section 131 of the Act, to all the shareholders to examine the sources of investments and the reasons for payment of high share premium. In response to the summons Ld.AR submitted that eight shareholders have

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

29 shareholders are relatives and friends of the Directors who have invested in the company. Ld.AR further conceded that the Ld.AO has issued summons under section 131 of the Act, to all the shareholders to examine the sources of investments and the reasons for payment of high share premium. In response to the summons Ld.AR submitted that eight shareholders have

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. K.VENKATA RAJU, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.501/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Circle-2(1) D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Rajahmundry Kadiam Mandal Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.153/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.501/Viz/2019) (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Tax Kadiam Mandal Circle-2(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Scondonation Of Delay :

gains of business shall be 6 I.T.A. No.501/Viz/2019 & CO No.153/Viz/2019 A.Y.2008-09 M/s K.Venkata Raju, Rajahmundry computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 and 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

29,41,90,834/- Total Liabilities (L) Rs. 19,19,05,428/- Net value (A – L) Rs. 10,22,85,406/- Paid up value of equity capital Rs. 8,50,42,600/- Fair market value (A-L)*PE/PV Rs. 12.02/- Value of 4,25,000 shares Rs. 1,08,78,100/- Face value of shares Rs. 90,50,000/- Difference

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10) ordains that if between the eligible undertaking and the assessee, the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee in the eligible business more than the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business for the purpose of deduction under section 8OIA, the assessing officer would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10) ordains that if between the eligible undertaking and the assessee, the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee in the eligible business more than the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business for the purpose of deduction under section 8OIA, the assessing officer would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10) ordains that if between the eligible undertaking and the assessee, the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee in the eligible business more than the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business for the purpose of deduction under section 8OIA, the assessing officer would

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

capital gains (STCG): Rs.61,60,000/-. 9. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements 8 Venkata Ramana

TEKI VENKATA RAMA RAO,,KAKINADA vs. THE ITO,, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.151/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Sri Teki Venkata Ramana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-2-10 (International Taxation) Seshasai Street Kakinada Ramarao Peta Kakinada, E.G.Dist [Pan :Affpt6413G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 10.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

Capital Gains which he worked out at 20% of Rs. 9,29,793 does not hold any water. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the quantification of the TDS deductible by the assessee under section 195 of the Act was correctly made by the Assessing Officer under section