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

Bench: Us:

section 48(i) of the Act while computing the “Capital gains” on the sale of the subject properties, deem it apposite to cull out the facts involved in the present case. 16. As is discernible from the record, the assessee along with M/s Kothapeta Settibaliga Ramamandriram Committee, Rajahmundry, had during the subject year executed a sale deed dated

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)

section 234A; 234B and 234C and the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 3. The above grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or any of the above grounds appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

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

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain based on JDA. The relevant decision of the Hon'ble High Court in para 10 to 19 is as under: “10. We have considered the rival submissions on both sides and have perused the record. 11. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain based on JDA. The relevant decision of the Hon'ble High Court in para 10 to 19 is as under: “10. We have considered the rival submissions on both sides and have perused the record. 11. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain based on JDA. The relevant decision of the Hon'ble High Court in para 10 to 19 is as under: “10. We have considered the rival submissions on both sides and have perused the record. 11. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain based on JDA. The relevant decision of the Hon'ble High Court in para 10 to 19 is as under: “10. We have considered the rival submissions on both sides and have perused the record. 11. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section

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

capital gains returned by the appellant/assessee and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and is against the provisions of law and also against the judicial opinion on the same. 4. The remaining grounds raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 to 4, 6 and 8 are not pressed by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing, Therefore, ground

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

capital gains returned by the appellant/assessee and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and is against the provisions of law and also against the judicial opinion on the same. 4. The remaining grounds raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 to 4, 6 and 8 are not pressed by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing, Therefore, ground

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

capital gains returned by the appellant/assessee and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and is against the provisions of law and also against the judicial opinion on the same. 4. The remaining grounds raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 to 4, 6 and 8 are not pressed by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing, Therefore, ground

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

capital gains returned by the appellant/assessee and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and is against the provisions of law and also against the judicial opinion on the same. 4. The remaining grounds raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 to 4, 6 and 8 are not pressed by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing, Therefore, ground

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

19,31,147/- whereas it was as per Form-16 furnished by the assessee Rs. 6,31,001/- and Rs. 53,933/-. The Ld. AO therefore concluded that the assessee has made an excess claim of Rs. 13,00,147/- U/s. 10 of the Act and reopened the case U/s. 148 of the Act with the prior approval of JCIT

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

capital gains. 16. Ostensibly, as per the record to which our attention has been drawn by the Ld. AR., we find that the agricultural land of the assessee, admeasuring 111 sq. meters situated at Gudavalli Mandal, Subbavaram, District: Visakhapatnam, was compulsorily acquired as per - Award No. 8 of 2022, dated 04.02.2022 under Section 3E(1) of the National Highways

SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains. We find that the assessee initially purchased the property which is situated at Gollapudi village and, subsequently it came under the jurisdiction of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The assessee converted the entire land into plots after 09 years and after dividing into plots, the same has been sold after waiting of near about 6 years. From the above

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains. We find that the assessee initially purchased the property which is situated at Gollapudi village and, subsequently it came under the jurisdiction of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The assessee converted the entire land into plots after 09 years and after dividing into plots, the same has been sold after waiting of near about 6 years. From the above

TADIKAMALLA POORNA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRIKAKKULAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer 12-6-36/4/9, Flat No. 408 Palakonda Road – 532001 Andhra Pradesh Mjr Solitaire, Moosapet Balanagar, Sanathnagar Ie -530018 Telangana [Pan: Abbpt5790J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gains section and thereby showing calculation of short term capital loss of Rs. 1364912/- had erroneously shown as negative figure in Page No. 2 I.T.A. No.83/VIZ/2025 Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao the gross profit column of the business income as speculation loss. The appellant has provided with submission copy of consolidated statement issued by Zerodha Stockbroking Services showing net result

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said