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

CHINTALA RAMBABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

10,34,000/- on 31/03/2007 vide document No. 2536/2007. The Assessing Officer has noted that market value of the property was Rs. 14,56,000/- as per section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, case of the assessee was reopened and assessment was completed by taxing the capital gains

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

KONDA VENKATESWARA REDDY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Konda Venkateswara Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.44-15-97 Ward-3(3) Lenin Nagar, Gunadala Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Akmpv9138J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Karthik Manickam, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada Dated 10.02.2020 With The Delay Of 34 Days For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Stating That The Delay Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Lockdown Declared By The State Government. There Was No Malafide Intention In Filing The Appeal

34 days for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, stating that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown declared by the State Government. There was no malafide intention in filing the appeal 2 I.T.A. No.146/Viz/2020, A.Y.2016-17 Konda Venkateswara Reddy, Vijayawada belatedly and hence requested to condone the delay

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, 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

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

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

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

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)

34,00,000 8,50,42,600 = 1,69,27,036 i.e. 12.64 per share Valuation as on 26/03/2013 A Book Value of Assets Fixed Assets 57,92,608 Current Assets 14,02,08,058 14,60,00,666 B Book Value of Liabilities Long term borrowings 7,43,36,466 Short term borrowings 8,50,000 Trade Payables