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

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

section 10(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to the provisions of\nsection 96 of REFTLAR Act, 2013.\n3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the land in question\nwhich was subjected to compulsory acquisition under National Highways Act,\n1956 was an agricultural land as per the revenue records and hence the\nsubject transfer

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

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

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, 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

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

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

29,771/- and made disallowance on the ground that the one of the partners of the assessee-firm failed to offer the interest on capital received by him from the firm. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and determined the assessed income at Rs. 13,50,210/- against the returned income

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

29,771/- and made disallowance on the ground that the one of the partners of the assessee-firm failed to offer the interest on capital received by him from the firm. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and determined the assessed income at Rs. 13,50,210/- against the returned income

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

29,771/- and made disallowance on the ground that the one of the partners of the assessee-firm failed to offer the interest on capital received by him from the firm. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and determined the assessed income at Rs. 13,50,210/- against the returned income

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

29,771/- and made disallowance on the ground that the one of the partners of the assessee-firm failed to offer the interest on capital received by him from the firm. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and determined the assessed income at Rs. 13,50,210/- against the returned income

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)

capital gains (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s Sunbeam Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. On 26.02.2019, search and seizure proceedings were conducted in the case of M/s Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. During the course of the search proceedings, a copy

VIJAPURAPU SUDHA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10,26,020/-. Thereafter, the return was summarily processed by the CPC, Bengaluru and an order U/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 1/11/2017. Subsequently, the assessee filed his revised return of income on 1/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,81,290/- which includes capital gains of Rs. 34,65,000/- on sale of vacant site admeasuring

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

capital gains for the AY 2012-13 and the copy of the return filed by the NRI are placed at pages 4 to 8 of the paper book filed before the Tribunal. He therefore pleaded that the initiation of proceedings U/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act is bad in law and not justifiable. 6. Per contra

PAVANCHANDRA CHITFUNDS PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Us:

10 Pavanchandra Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd. the assessee company on sale of the developed property of Rs. 20,81,044/- by an amount of Rs. 66,67,806/-. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O. had grossly erred in substituting the actual sale consideration of the subject property by the SRO rates under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, , VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

gains of business or profession” wherein the disallowance U/s. 43B has been made becomes irrelevant and as such no consequentialeffect would be given to the disallowed amount on payment basis in the subsequent year. Therefore, the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam was of the opinion that such expenditure having no correlation with the income of the assessee earned during the relevant