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)

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 gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit

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

139 of IT. Act. It was also noticed by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had suppressed the Short term Capital gain to the extent of Rs.83,95,037/-. Thus, the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 was completed on 11.05.2022 by adding of Rs. 83.95.037/- and assessed STCG of Rs. 1,83,71,987/- thereby raised a demand

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

9. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact the impugned property that was sold was a rural agricultural land and not a capital asset as defined u/s 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act, hence the question of capital gains does not arise. 10. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the issue being sale of rural

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s Sunbeam Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. On 26.02.2019, search and seizure proceedings were conducted in the case of M/s Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. During the course of the search proceedings, a copy

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)

139 of the Act. Since the assessee could not justify with evidence about the existence of the AOP, the AO held that the AOP was not established with due diligence, but established to be created to avoid the provisions of sec.50C of the Act in the hands of these 6 persons. He further held that the property sold

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

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.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains of Rs.15,27,00,000/- declared by the assessee u/s 132(4). The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act accepting the income returned and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and accordingly issued show cause notice calling for explanation of the assessee as to why the penalty should

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

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

9,90,000 Through No Yes Yes Not Appeared Bankers Cheque 8 POOSARLA DEVI 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through No Yes Yes Not Appeared Bankers Cheque TOTAL 80,57,500 18. It was the plea of the Ld.AR to provide one more opportunity for the above listed shareholders in Table No. 4, to substantiate their

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

9,90,000 Through No Yes Yes Not Appeared Bankers Cheque 8 POOSARLA DEVI 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through No Yes Yes Not Appeared Bankers Cheque TOTAL 80,57,500 18. It was the plea of the Ld.AR to provide one more opportunity for the above listed shareholders in Table No. 4, to substantiate their

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

Bench: Us:

gains. Consequently, Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the resultant accretion on transfer to the subsidiary company as income from business of appellant. Further, it was also contended that the said land should not be treated as 'business asset' and thereby the resultant surplus should not be assessed as business income. 5 3.1. As per the profit & loss account

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