KALVA UMADEVI ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHPATNAM

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.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

gain under the provisions of section 48 of the Act. The net sale consideration as a result of transfer of capital asset is a consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer. There is difference between net sale consideration and full value consideration. In our considered view, if the assessee invests net sale consideration for the purpose of purchase/construction

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

Bench: Us:

section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 while computing the Capital Gains. Moreover since the property was mortgaged with bank without clearing the loan of bank was not possible for assessee to dispose the property. The payment was made by assessee to bank for Title clearance charges. Accordingly, ground nos. 3 to 28 are allowed and the AO is directed

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

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

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

section (I) shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new asset is transferred.'. The assessee has claimed exemption U/s. 54F considering the entire built up area as one residential unit. In our view it cannot be considered as a single residential unit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAJA RAO PARACHURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TPA"), and computed long-term capital gain of Rs. 11,26,01,500/- in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2013–14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

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

capital gain, whereas by additional grounds, the Assessee claimed that the consideration amount received (Jasti Sridhar Babu) for sale on land is not liable for any tax as the land sold was an agricultural and exempted as per provision of section 2(14

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)

section 54F. [Para 14]  It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had made investment well within the stipulated period. The investment was more than the capital gain

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)

Capital Gains tax liability by the authorities below. If that be so, the Assessee-HUF in the present case, in our opinion, complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under section 54 of the Act for the entire investment in the properties and securities

SANNIDHI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY (HUF),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

section 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. Page No. 10 I.T.A. No. 230/VIZ/2024 Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (HUF) 14. The case laws relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable on the facts that it relates to the nature of income and not to the date of reckoning of the capital gains

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)

capital gain in the Asstt.Year 2013-14 only. 14. It is pertinent to observe that an agreement to sale was executed by the assessee on 8.2.2010 which is followed by payment through account payee cheque. Details of payments have been duly noticed by the ld.AO as well as by the ld.CIT(A). First cheque was received

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)

capital gains and the appellant filed explanation and information claiming deduction u/S.54F, but denied the claim on the ground of absence of claim in the return of income. 4. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the appellant's claim for deduction u/S.54F made with full details of his entitlement before the learned

VENKATARAM SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

gain u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted that ‘capital region’ is similar to municipality / township / cantonment area “or by any other name” include the capital region also. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section

SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

section 54(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT considered the sale as short term capital gains and consequently concluded that deduction claimed U/s. 54EC of the Act is not allowable. The Ld. CIT did not consider the explanation provided by the assessee that the date of Development Agreement should be construed as date of acquisition of the capital asset

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

section 54(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT considered the sale as short term capital gains and consequently concluded that deduction claimed U/s. 54EC of the Act is not allowable. The Ld. CIT did not consider the explanation provided by the assessee that the date of Development Agreement should be construed as date of acquisition of the capital asset

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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.497/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Circle-3(1) D.No.50-1-51/1 Visakhapatnam Asr Nagar, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.130/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.497/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.50-1-51/1 Income Tax Asr Nagar Circle-3(1) Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व कीओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2020

Capital Gains under stump-sale.” 6.1. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee has sold the wind mills and claimed it as a separate undertaking. Separate undertaking is one which can be separated from the business unit and both the business units of the assessee should be run separately, independent of each and they should

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

gains while filing the return of income and during the assessment proceedings. Later, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt before the Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). In this context, it is relevant to 9 understand the definition of ‘capital asset’ as defined U/s. 2(14) of the Act. Sec. 2(14

T.NAGI REDDY (HUF),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blet. Nagireddy (Huf), Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, D.No. 17-40-23, Visakhapatnam. Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaht 4815 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(14) (iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the asset can be classified only as capital asset, and the transfer of which would attract capital gains

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

Section\n2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act; nor within the notified area limits as contemplated\nu/s 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, and thus, was not a ‘capital asset', therefore,\nthe profit/gain on the transfer of the same could not have been brought\nto tax in the hands of the assessee under the head “capital gain

NALINI BANDI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

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

capital gain tax, being considered as rural agricultural land. The ld. Commissioner though considered the contention and documents of the Assessee, however affirmed the order of the AO, while rejecting the claim of the Assessee by holding that section 2(14