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

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 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 of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. Pr. CIT in exercising his powers U/s. 263 of the Act noticed that the assessee has made a claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act for Rs.18,11,240/-. From the assessment record, the Ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessee has sold

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, 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

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

NAGESWARA RAO VISWANADHA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

34,500 – Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 1,92,84,500] which was already declared by the assessee while filing the return of income. Aggrieved by the above addition made in the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)- NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, invoking the provisions of section

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

34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A. No. 117/VIZ/2021& C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 M/s. Linton Projects Private Limited& Smt. Poosarla Satyavathi shareholders 4 shareholders are relatives of Directors and one shareholder being Private company namely Sri Bhagawan Estates Private Limited, in which the above Directors are interested. He further explained that balance 29 shareholders are relatives and friends

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

34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A. No. 117/VIZ/2021& C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 M/s. Linton Projects Private Limited& Smt. Poosarla Satyavathi shareholders 4 shareholders are relatives of Directors and one shareholder being Private company namely Sri Bhagawan Estates Private Limited, in which the above Directors are interested. He further explained that balance 29 shareholders are relatives and friends

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)

section 148A(b) of the Act dated 31.03.2022. It was noticed that the assessee has sold the impugned property for a consideration of Rs.1,42,44,000/- on 12.09.2017 which was misreported as Rs.2,84,88,.000/- in the notice. Assessee has offered long term capital gain of Rs. 1,34,637/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.2

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

34,400/- on 21.02.2022 by claiming exemption for long term capital gains under section 54F of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates requiring the assessee to file the details Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024 Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu called for. On verification of the details, it was found that

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

MAHESH KUDARAVALLI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.230/Viz/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mahesh Kudaravalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Bbppk 3773 H Tenali. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 04/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

34,970/- from ‘salary’ and ‘other sources’ after claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act to tune of Rs. 1,63,000/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of ‘cash deposits during demonetization period’. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 9/8/2018 and the same was duly served on the assessee on 13/08/2018. Thereafter, notice

GOVINDAMMA ISIREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Govindamma Isireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(4), Pan: Afipi4540L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 27/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Thane, Dated 12/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 28/12/2019 For 2 Govindamma Isireddy Vs. Ito

capital gains be deleted in full, and the appeal of the Appellant be allowed.” 3 Govindamma Isireddy vs. ITO 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 04/01/2018 declaring an income of Rs.8,34,900/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under section

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

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

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

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

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

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

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