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 in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) did not do so. 8. Any other grounds of appeal that emerge out of the appeal proceedings from time to time.” 3. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross Objector on the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s ground of appeal

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

MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

150/-. The assessee had produced the books of accounts and on verification, the AO found that the director made several visits to the 5 I.T.A Nos.67/Viz/2016& 68/Viz/2017 M/s Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam foreign countries, but the nature and purpose of such visits as well as the business conducted by the Director was not explained to the AO satisfactorily

M/S. MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

150/-. The assessee had produced the books of accounts and on verification, the AO found that the director made several visits to the 5 I.T.A Nos.67/Viz/2016& 68/Viz/2017 M/s Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam foreign countries, but the nature and purpose of such visits as well as the business conducted by the Director was not explained to the AO satisfactorily

YARAMATI VEERA RAGHAVULU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. 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’Bleyaramati Veera Raghavulu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. Gowthami Refrigeration Rajamahendravaram. Services, D.No. 36-10-47, Stadium Road, Innispeta, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aanpy 9557 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Income (Yaramati Veera Raghavulu) Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, dated 29/03/2014 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1

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)

150% of the actual expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Based on this, the learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 02.01.2017 had directed the assessing officer to reduce the penalty to the extent of addition sustained. 7. The condition of the partner Smt P. Satya Shanti (M/s. Sri Surya Anjaneya Industries) became critical during the month of January

TAMMANA SURYA NARAYANA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletammana Surya Narayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. : Sri Swamy Ayyappa Machilipatnam. Traders, 27/299-3, Pathramannapet, Ed Plots, Machilipatnam. Pan No. Adhpt 8046 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the (Tammana Surya Narayana) Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, dated 28/12/2011 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-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.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gain on account of extra shares allotted to the assessee, instead of taking the fair market value as on the date of transfer 7 I.T.A. No.270 /Viz/2018 Sri Kumar Pappu Singh, Tanuku before the allotment. Similarly, the quantum of extra shares was worked out by the assessee at 36,150 shares as against 1,50,000 shares received

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

150/- (Rs. 28,32,83,750 + Rs.40,54,400/-) to the returned income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) held that the valuation date means the date on which the shares were allotted, thus, viewed that for taking

BASWA VENKATA SATYA SAI KUMAR REDDY,ANAPARTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18) Baswa Venkata Satya Sai Kumar Reddy, V. Income Tax Officer, Anaparthi. Ward-1, [Pan: Caipb3816M] Kakinada. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Capital Gains on the sale of land by the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not accept the submissions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital accounts of the partners have predominantly arisen on account of the losses incurred by the assessee during the earlier years and not due to withdrawal of funds by the partners. Hence, the observation of the AO in this regard is found to be factually incorrect. 30. In view of the discussion made in paragraphs 25 to 29 above

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital accounts of the partners have predominantly arisen on account of the losses incurred by the assessee during the earlier years and not due to withdrawal of funds by the partners. Hence, the observation of the AO in this regard is found to be factually incorrect. 30. In view of the discussion made in paragraphs 25 to 29 above