DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. KANDULA LAKSHUMMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KADAPA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Smt.Kandula Income Tax (Exemptions) Lakshumma Memorial Vijayawada Educational Society D.No.3/429 Raja Reddy Street Kadapa [Pan :Aadas4432Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.91/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.179/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Vs. M/S Smt.Kandula Lakshumma Deputy Commissioner Of Memorial Educational Society Income Tax (Exemptions) D.No.3/429 Vijayawada Raja Reddy Street Kadapa [Pan :Aadas4432Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओ रसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020

capital receipts, hence no interference is called in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 was the payment made to Sri K.Sivananda Reddy, member of the Trust. The assessee has paid the sum of Rs.10 lakhs

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

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

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

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

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

c=IN O=INCOME\nTAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ou=INCOME\nTAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n2026-03-06 13:45+05:30\nSr. Private Secretary\nITAT, Visakhapatnam", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a builder, which was later cancelled. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the consideration mentioned in the JDA as income and levied capital gains

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ARYAPURAM COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. The Aryapuram Rajamahendravaram. Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., D.No. 20-23-8, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaatt 8099 C (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

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (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 High

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. ANDHRA TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. Department by : Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing : 28/04/2021. Date of pronouncement : 05/05/2021. C.O.No. 05/VIZ/2020 (M/s. Andhra Trade Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) O R D E R PERD.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are directed against

D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 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

T.SATYANARAYANA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletalluri Satyanarayana, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Prop. : Sairam Parlour, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 47-11-9, Diamond Park, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaqpt 9170 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished (Talluri Satyanarayana) 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