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

D.USHA REDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.602/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) D Usha Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer 312 Mvv Mk Royal Gardens Ward 1(4) Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acppd9238E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains (on the ground that no evidence was produced) without giving opportunity to the appellant. Hence the appellant prays for relief. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in his finding that the credit in the bank account amounting to Rs.55,00,000/- was not proved though the appellant has proved it by filing confirmation letter. Hence, the appellant prays

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gains and other sources, filed return of\nincome for the A.Y. 2006-07 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited.\n5. M/s. Maa Mahamaya

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gains and other sources, filed return of\nincome for the A.Y. 2006-07 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited

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

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

capital gains claim u/s.54F as well as loans obtained from various persons. These two items have direct bearing on the income of the appellant. In view of the facts discussed above, I consider that the Assessing Officer has correctly assumed jurisdiction u/s.153C. Further, the appellant had complied with the proceedings by filing replies and other details without objection

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

capital gains claim u/s.54F as well as loans obtained from various persons. These two items have direct bearing on the income of the appellant. In view of the facts discussed above, I consider that the Assessing Officer has correctly assumed jurisdiction u/s.153C. Further, the appellant had complied with the proceedings by filing replies and other details without objection

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

1. The Ld. AO is not correct in making an assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of Income-tax Act, instead of under section 153A r.w.s, 143(3). 2. The Notice issued under section 148 has been served on Shri Ambika Prasad, Chartered Accountant instead of on the assessee, hence the entire assessment is void ab initio. 3. The Notice

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

1. The Ld. AO is not correct in making an assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of Income-tax Act, instead of under section 153A r.w.s, 143(3). 2. The Notice issued under section 148 has been served on Shri Ambika Prasad, Chartered Accountant instead of on the assessee, hence the entire assessment is void ab initio. 3. The Notice

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

1. The Ld. AO is not correct in making an assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of Income-tax Act, instead of under section 153A r.w.s, 143(3). 2. The Notice issued under section 148 has been served on Shri Ambika Prasad, Chartered Accountant instead of on the assessee, hence the entire assessment is void ab initio. 3. The Notice

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

1. The Ld. AO is not correct in making an assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of Income-tax Act, instead of under section 153A r.w.s, 143(3). 2. The Notice issued under section 148 has been served on Shri Ambika Prasad, Chartered Accountant instead of on the assessee, hence the entire assessment is void ab initio. 3. The Notice

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

153A of the Act was issued on 15.09.2018. In response, assessee filed her Return of Income electronically for the A.Y.2014-15 on 17.10.2018 declaring Total Income at Rs. 2,56,940/-. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the above notices, Authoritized Representative

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

153A of the Act was issued on 15.09.2018. In response, assessee filed her Return of Income electronically for the A.Y.2014-15 on 17.10.2018 declaring Total Income at Rs. 2,56,940/-. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the above notices, Authoritized Representative

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

gains (STCG) on sale of property: Rs.11,55,505/-; (ii) disallowance of the assessee’s claim of long term capital loss: Rs.47,729/-; and (iii) unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act towards purchase of an immovable property: Rs.33,88,000/-, determined his income at Rs.52,43,830/-. 4 Venkata Prasad Pulipati vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

capital gains: Rs.4,48,23,073/-; (ii) addition under the head profit and gains from business or profession: Rs.2,37,686/-; and (iii) interest income: Rs.62,445/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the same. Ostensibly, the assessee had assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed

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

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