VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

M/S. ANDHRA TRADE DEVELOPMENT - CORPORATION, PVT.LTD.,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.233/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Andhra Trade Development The Assistant Commissioner Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aabca8777C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

115 JB, ‘Book profit’ means the net profit as shown in the Profit &Loss account for the relevant previous year prepared u/s 115JB, as increased by the amounts carried to any reserves by whatever name called, other than the reserve specified u/s 33AC of the act (i.e. Reserve for Shipping Business). In the instant case, the assessee has derived

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 arising out of this transaction and not on the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 61,62,500 for a better appreciation of the issue the provisions of section 195 are extracted here below : "195.(1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being

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

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

115/- and Rs.64,53,836/- respectively. 6. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee following the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract the 4 ITA Nos. 4-6

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

115/- and Rs.64,53,836/- respectively. 6. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee following the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract the 4 ITA Nos. 4-6

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

115/- and Rs.64,53,836/- respectively. 6. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee following the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract the 4 ITA Nos. 4-6

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee company assailed the impugned addition made by the A.O. on the merits of the case. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations

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

115 BBE. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have consider the sources for the investment made by the 34 shareholders since all of them have submitted the copies of their individual returns along with copies of their bank accounts and many of them have appeared in response to the summons and have given the sworn statements. 4. The learned

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

115 BBE. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have consider the sources for the investment made by the 34 shareholders since all of them have submitted the copies of their individual returns along with copies of their bank accounts and many of them have appeared in response to the summons and have given the sworn statements. 4. The learned

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

section 92B of the Act. 2.3. The DRP/TPO/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the Act provides for taxing only real income whether received or accrued under the normal provisions. 2.4. The DRP/TPO/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on hypothetical and notional basis until and unless there is some material

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

115 VI and Rule 11R. We have carefully considered the argument of the Ld. D.R. and the Ld. A.R. and also gone through the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT. Since the Ld. D.R. disagreed, we are of the considered view that section 115VI and Rule 11R defined the income from shipping and incidental activities very clearly and there

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

115 VI and Rule 11R. We have carefully considered the argument of the Ld. D.R. and the Ld. A.R. and also gone through the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT. Since the Ld. D.R. disagreed, we are of the considered view that section 115VI and Rule 11R defined the income from shipping and incidental activities very clearly and there

THE ACIT, 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