INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

c)As a principle, the amount spent to get rid of any liability or encumbrance cannot be regarded as cost of improvement of a capital asset. d) Since the buyer has directly paid the amount to the creditor banks, the same is not deductible in computing the capital gains on the sale of the assessee’s 10 ITA No.482/Viz/2024

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. ALAPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

13. In Vijay Flexible Containers (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered that right to obtain a conveyance of immovable property falls within the express ‘property of any kind’ uses in section 2(14), it is not mere right to sue. In the present case, the assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of immovable property

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

13- Gains – Except as provided in Article 8 (Shipping and Air Transport) of this Convention, each Contracting State may tax capital gains in accordance with the provisions of its domestic law. In view of the above, the AO has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54F 4. Aggrieved

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

D.USHA REDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.602/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) D Usha Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer 312 Mvv Mk Royal Gardens Ward 1(4) Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acppd9238E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains (on the ground that no evidence was produced) without giving opportunity to the appellant. Hence the appellant prays for relief. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in his finding that the credit in the bank account amounting to Rs.55,00,000/- was not proved though the appellant has proved it by filing confirmation letter. Hence, the appellant prays

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

C’ Bench Chennai in the case of Smt. Sumati Siva Kumari Vs. ITO Wd.2(4) (Chennai) in 2132/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 for 11 I.T.A. No.322 /Viz/2016 Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada which the Accountant Member is one of the signatories held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F even if the amount is sourced from

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : “WHEREAS

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Reliance Petro Products Private Limited (322 ITR 158) (SC) and the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Rolling Works Limited Vs. CIT ,339 ITR 373 and CIT-21 Vs. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. vide I.T.A No.1498 of 2014 dated

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Reliance Petro Products Private Limited (322 ITR 158) (SC) and the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Rolling Works Limited Vs. CIT ,339 ITR 373 and CIT-21 Vs. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. vide I.T.A No.1498 of 2014 dated

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains" shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing, as a result of the transfer of the capital assets the following amounts, viz. (a) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; and (b) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. 9. Section

M.V. ANIL KUMAR REDDY, ,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem.V. Anil Kumar Reddy, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, D.No. 46-16-18, Danavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram. Rajahmundry, E.G. District. Pan No. Afnpm 0792 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CHILUKURI HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Chilukuri Housing Projects Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., 9-21-17/2, Ground Floor, Street No. 21, Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aadcc 1027 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

13,35,730/- and Rs. 35,44,809/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed C.O.No. 47/VIZ/2018 (M/s. Chilukuri Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd.) under section 143(3) by determining total income of Rs. 3.28 crores. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and called

PUSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepusarla Subhash, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-13-6, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aigpp 2446 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

SRI VENKATESWARAVADDERA COOLIE SANGAM,,ELURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Venkateswara Vaddera Vs. Income Tax Officer Coolie Sangam Ward-1 D.No.6A-13-6, Ponangi Road Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aacts4370F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

13,900/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal

GRANDHI ARAVINDAM,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA‟s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also the Hon'ble High

GRANDHI ARAVINDAM,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA‟s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also the Hon'ble High

GRANDHI ARAVINDAM,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., CIRCLE-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA‟s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also the Hon'ble High

TARAKARAMA ENTERPRISES vs. THE ITO.,, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletarakarama Enterprises, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Pacherlanka, Chellapalli Mandal, Machilipatnam. Krishna District. Pan No. Aadft 4317 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

13,03,252/- and raised a demand of Rs.6,67,397/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by 3. the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice