R.VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE R. VENKATESWARA RAO,LINGAPALEM MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (Wife & Legal Heir Of Late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Agfpr6873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the IT Act ? " This was answered by Hon'ble High Court as follows : " As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital

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)

gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new asset is transferred.] 71[(4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which

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)

gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the IT Act ? " This was answered by Hon'ble High Court as follows : "As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3) , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MEENA TANGUDU, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

gains\"\nrelating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new\nasset is transferred.\n(4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the\nassessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year\nbefore the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or\nwhich

KONDA VENKATESWARA REDDY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Konda Venkateswara Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.44-15-97 Ward-3(3) Lenin Nagar, Gunadala Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Akmpv9138J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Karthik Manickam, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada Dated 10.02.2020 With The Delay Of 34 Days For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Stating That The Delay Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Lockdown Declared By The State Government. There Was No Malafide Intention In Filing The Appeal

capital gains at Rs.6,47,51,940/- only hypothetically and notionally, which is not permissible under law. Therefore, submitted that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee filed the return of income in response to section 148 on 05.03.2018, a notice

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

139(1) of the Act but has filed return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. However, it is the contention of the department that assessee has not considered the provisions of section 50C of the Act while filing the return of income under section 148 of the Act. This matter was agitated before

UPPADA KESAVAJANARDHANA RAO,FLORIDA, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , 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. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 139 of IT. Act. It was also noticed by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had suppressed the Short term Capital gain

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

139(1) of\nthe Act dated 15.09.2023, inter alia disclosed the “Long Term Capital\nGains\" (LTCG) of Rs. 1,01,740/- arising on the compulsory acquisition\nof his lands under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Ld. AR\nsubmitted that the CPC, Bangalore, vide its intimation issued u/s\n143(1) of the Act dated 28.02.2024, had recomputed the subject “Long

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 does not arise. 10. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the issue being sale of rural agricultural land which was claimed by the assessee as not taxable, instead dismissed this issue based on his observation that assessee failed to furnish proof of crop cultivation, yield records, and so on, which cannot be a basis for determining

SATHI TRINATHA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Capital Gain Account Scheme on or before the due date of filing of return of income U/s. 139(1) of the Act.” 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] submitted that the assessee has provided the copy of documents before the Ld. AO and the Ld. AO after considering the same, accepted the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA vs. SRI JIYYANA VENKATARAYUDU (HUF), KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 173/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu Tax, Circle-1, (Huf), Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aahhj3600A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 197(b) of the IDS, 2016 and concluded that the income declared by the assessee shall be treated as income of the assessee in the year of declaration and brought the amount of Rs.2,15,48,400/- to tax U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. AO also issued a show cause notice dated 02/12/2019

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2018, since the assessee has not disclosed the capital gains arising from the sale of the said property by filing a return of income. The assessee did not file his return of income in response to the notice

CHIGURUPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

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.202/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Dr.No.32-41-47/28, Near Library Ward-2(2) Machavaram Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan : Abjpc1799A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains reckoning the provisions of section 50C. The assessee was also asked to justify his claim that there existed AOP as on the date of purchase with corroborative evidence like bank account opened by AOP, filing of income tax returns by the AOP as per provisions of section 139

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

139(4) of the Act, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] treated the return of income filed on 27.09.2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14 as non-est. Subsequently, the case was reopened after obtaining prior approval from the competent authorities and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and served on the assessee

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)

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(b) is void ab initio as the grounds mentioned therein were

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

BOMMANA RAJKUMAR,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in (i)

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.546-548/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15) Bommana Rajkumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bommana Rajkumar & Co Income Tax Main Road Central Circle Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abkpr3836J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gains amounting to Rs.28,16,958/-. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153C, the AO found that the assessee has claimed the deduction for payment rent of Rs.7,36,053/- u/s 57 of the Act,i.e. from the income from other sources. Since the rent paid is not an allowable deduction

BOMMANA RAJKUMAR,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in (i)

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.546-548/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15) Bommana Rajkumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bommana Rajkumar & Co Income Tax Main Road Central Circle Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abkpr3836J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gains amounting to Rs.28,16,958/-. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153C, the AO found that the assessee has claimed the deduction for payment rent of Rs.7,36,053/- u/s 57 of the Act,i.e. from the income from other sources. Since the rent paid is not an allowable deduction

BOMMANA RAJKUMAR,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in (i)

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.546-548/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15) Bommana Rajkumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bommana Rajkumar & Co Income Tax Main Road Central Circle Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abkpr3836J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gains amounting to Rs.28,16,958/-. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153C, the AO found that the assessee has claimed the deduction for payment rent of Rs.7,36,053/- u/s 57 of the Act,i.e. from the income from other sources. Since the rent paid is not an allowable deduction