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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gain”. The\nLd. AR submitted that the aforesaid ground regarding the non-taxability\nof the compensation received on the compulsory acquisition of\nagricultural land by NHAI was not raised at the time of filing of the\nreturn of income, but had been raised because of changed\ncircumstances. The Ld. AR submitted that as the aforesaid ground\ninvolves a purely legal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains of Rs. 8,19,153/- and income from house property of Rs. 3,26,665/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny in respect of cash deposits and purchase of immovable property and the Ld. AO has completed the assessment under section

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

capital in M/s. Maa Mahamaya\nIndustries Limited and M/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. However, the revenue\nhas not seized any incriminating material nor placed any material on record\nindicating the involvement of the assessee in the cash payments made to the\nshell companies. Ld. AO has made additions based on assumptions and\nsurmises. Various judicial pronouncements have held that

VIJAYRATNA VEERA KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

capital gains without applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act and thereafter issued a notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act. The assessee submitted his response for adopting the actual sale consideration of Rs. 28 lakhs instead of the 50C value of Rs. 78,19

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

capital gains (STCG): Rs.61,60,000/-. 9. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements 8 Venkata Ramana

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

capital in M/s. Maa Mahamaya\nIndustries Limited and M/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. However, the revenue\nhas not seized any incriminating material nor placed any material on record\nindicating the involvement of the assessee in the cash payments made to the\nshell companies. Ld. AO has made additions based on assumptions and\nsurmises. Various judicial pronouncements have held that

SARNALA SAYABABU,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the asseseee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sarnala Sayababu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(3), Pan: Aheps 0990 A Guntur. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

capital gains‟ without giving the benefit of indexation of cost of acquisition. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property & business filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.8,08,260/- after claiming deduction