SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gains and has\nclaimed exemption for the same during the impugned assessment year.\nFurther, Ld. AO also observed that the shares held in DP Account for less\nthan a period of one year and hence exemption claimed under section 10(38

MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

10. Total 49,44,000 1,08,50,000 In the Profit & Loss account, the assessee has admitted the receipt of Rs.49,38,000/- towards sale of plots and debited a sum of Rs.89,17,930/- as expenditure (FMV on conversion of the asset as stock-in-trade) and arrived 3 I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2018 Manne Subba Rao, Rajamahendravaram at a loss

SATYANARAYANA VISWANADHA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.223/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha V. Ito – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpv0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

38,235/-. Further, Ld. AO observed that as there is no claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act in the return, therefore, the same cannot be allowed. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed various submissions, after considering the submissions

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

10(1) of the Act. 2. The ld. AO has wrongly assessed the agricultural income received by the Assessee as income from other sources without considering the fact that the land situated in Kesarapalli Village is an agricultural land and is in cultivation till the current financial year. The Assessee has also declared agricultural income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated in the return of income. b) The notice issued u/s 148A

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)

10/- each to the assessee and 14 others. In the allotment, the assessee had been allotted 4,25,000 shares on 05/04/2013 and 9,05,000 shares on 26/03/2014. The FMV of each share was worked out by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 676.55 as on 05/04/2013 as against the book value of assets

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.A.Rahim, I.T.P सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

capital in nature and hence, did not accept the claim of the assessee. The AO worked out the excess of income over expenditure at Rs.19,14,77,837/-. Since the activities of the assessee are held to be in the nature of trade and commerce, the AO invoked the provisions of section 2(15) and held that the assessee does

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEVI TATIPARTI, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.41/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Smt.Devi Tatiparti Circle-3(1) D.No.10-27-7/19 Visakhapatnam Sri Satya Sai Enclave Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.37/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.41/Viz/2021 Smt.Devi Tatiparti Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.10-27-7/19 Circle-3(1) Sri Satya Sai Enclave Visakhapatnam Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In Ita

capital gains on sale of shares at Rs.77,74,373/- and claimed as exempt income u/s 10(38) of the act. The AO has called for the details but the assessee failed to furnish the details, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 69A for an amount of Rs.77,74,343/-. 9. The assessee went on appeal before

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

38,33,331] was not offered by the assessee to tax by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 6,74,80,333/-. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assessee also claimed Rs. 39,39,656/- as deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. However

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

GIRIJA DEVI KOMMAREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1). , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Girija Devi Kommareddy Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.9-29-24/B, Cbm Compound Income Tax Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adfpk3441H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10,000/- and offered to tax nil long term capital gains. The AO verified the claim with relevant documents produced by the assessee and arrived at long term capital gain of Rs.12,46,018/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A), after careful examination

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

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