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 arising from the transaction of JDA as well as irrevocable GPA. The learned DR has referred to para 7(x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,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 arising from the transaction of JDA as well as irrevocable GPA. The learned DR has referred to para 7(x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir

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 arising from the transaction of JDA as well as irrevocable GPA. The learned DR has referred to para 7(x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir

SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

section 131. 5. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been communicated to the .assessee though the same have been specifically asked for by the appellant / assessee. 6. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the assessment has been made in the status

SYED RAHMAN SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

section 131. 5. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been communicated to the .assessee though the same have been specifically asked for by the appellant / assessee. 6. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the assessment has been made in the status

SYED IBRAHIM SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

section 131. 5. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been communicated to the .assessee though the same have been specifically asked for by the appellant / assessee. 6. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the assessment has been made in the status

SYED YAKUB SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

section 131. 5. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been communicated to the .assessee though the same have been specifically asked for by the appellant / assessee. 6. The entire assessment is ab initio void for the reason that the assessment has been made in the status

K. SANTHA KUMARI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Katragadda Muralikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.38-37-24, Bhaskar Gardens Ward-4(1) Marripalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Akipk7339L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131 of the Act was recorded, during which the assessee confirmed that the assessee executed the sale deed along with 8 others and received his share of Rs.74,71,100/- through cheques from M/s Indus Infra Promoters and 3 ITA No.123 & 124/Viz/2017, A.Y.2011-12 Katragadda Murali Krishna & K.Santha Kumari, Visakhapatnam Builders, but did not present the cheques in bank

KATRAGADDA MURALIKRISHNA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Katragadda Muralikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.38-37-24, Bhaskar Gardens Ward-4(1) Marripalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Akipk7339L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131 of the Act was recorded, during which the assessee confirmed that the assessee executed the sale deed along with 8 others and received his share of Rs.74,71,100/- through cheques from M/s Indus Infra Promoters and 3 ITA No.123 & 124/Viz/2017, A.Y.2011-12 Katragadda Murali Krishna & K.Santha Kumari, Visakhapatnam Builders, but did not present the cheques in bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as their income and paid the subject taxes on the same, and hence, immunity under the “proviso” to Section 201 was available; and (v) that in any event the TDS provisions under Section 194H, if any, would be relevant for the payments to the resident intermediaries and no obligation was cast under Section

SEELAMSETTY BALAJI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains at\nRs.7,62,655/-.\n4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal\nbefore Ld. CIT(A). Assessee reiterated the contentions raised before the\nLd.AO, however, no documentary evidences have produced before the\nLd.CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO\nand dismissed the appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains (for short, “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 24/03/2022 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,83,28,530/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the same. 9. Ostensibly

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

section 131 of the Act, to all the shareholders to examine the sources of investments and the reasons for payment of high share premium. In response to the summons Ld.AR submitted that eight shareholders have not appeared before the Ld.AO for recording the sworn statement. Out of the balance 21 shareholders, Ld.AR submitted that 6 shareholders have not accepted

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

section 131 of the Act, to all the shareholders to examine the sources of investments and the reasons for payment of high share premium. In response to the summons Ld.AR submitted that eight shareholders have not appeared before the Ld.AO for recording the sworn statement. Out of the balance 21 shareholders, Ld.AR submitted that 6 shareholders have not accepted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR vs. YERRA RAJESH, KOTHAPET

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Acit – Central Circle – 1 V. Yerra Rajesh 12-23-3, Kothapet -522001 Central Revenue Building Andhra Pradesh Kannavarithota Guntur – 522001 [Pan: Aagpy3466N] Andhra Pradesh

capital gains on account of sale of land to the assessee considering the entire sale consideration including the on-money payment received from the assessee. Assessee finally vide his letter dated 30.01.2024 objected to the proposed addition stating that he has not paid any additional amount as on-money. Ld. AO by not relying on the assessee’s reply concluded

PERFEX TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.477/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) V. Profex Technocrats Private Limited Income Tax Officer –Ward-3(3) 38-44-2/12, Jyothinagar Income Tax Office Marripalem Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh -530018 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Aaccp1426A] Andhra Pradesh - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Capital Gains of Rs. 34,12,927/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"], assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.477/VIZ/2024 Profex Technocrats Private Limited submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as the appeal was filed

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)

131, dated 11/03/2011 & 21/03/2013 were issued. The assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer on the pretext of one reason or the other. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment and initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) also

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. AASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized and not the material found in the search of any other person. Respectfully following the above precedents, we are of the considered view that the assessment made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities U/s. 153A of the Act is not valid