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

Bench: Us:

1, 2 and 29 are general in nature which do not call for separate adjudication. 5.3 Ground nos. 3 to 28 are appeal specific which revolve round the one and only issue involved in the case on hand. During the year of account, the assessee sold land of 10,164 sq. yards situated at Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh

TEKI VENKATA RAMA RAO,,KAKINADA vs. THE ITO,, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.151/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Sri Teki Venkata Ramana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-2-10 (International Taxation) Seshasai Street Kakinada Ramarao Peta Kakinada, E.G.Dist [Pan :Affpt6413G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 10.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

capital gains arising out of this transaction and not on the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 61,62,500 for a better appreciation of the issue the provisions of section 195 are extracted here below : "195.(1

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)

1)/(1A) was passed in the case of Sri T.Janardhana Rao on 12.02.2013 for not making TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on the payments made by him to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed her income tax return for the A.Y.2010-11 on 17.05.2013 admitting sale consideration of Rs.39,69,000/-, towards her share

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as their income and paid the subject taxes on the same, and hence, immunity under the “proviso” to Section 201 was available; and (v) that in any event the TDS provisions under Section 194H, if any, would be relevant for the payments to the resident intermediaries and no obligation was cast under Section 195

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAVIKUMAR BURUGUPALLI, WEST GODAVARI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 198/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) V. Ravikumar Burugupalli Income Tax Office Proprietor Sasi Fuel Infinity Towers, Ground Floor Sasi School, Main Road Sankaramatam Road Velivenu Post Visakhapatnam - 530016 West Godavari District – 534329 [Pan:Ajzpb2139H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 38/Viz/2025 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.198/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17)] Ravikumar Burugupalli V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) Proprietor Sasi Fuel Income Tax Office Sasi School, Main Road Infinity Towers, Ground Floor Velivenu Post Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam - 530016 West Godavari District – 534329 [Pan:Ajzpb2139H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

195 of the Act or under section 194IA of the Act. From the submissions of the Ld.AR, we find that the assessee has furnished Form 26A from the Chartered Accountant complying with the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act stating that the seller of the property has disclosed the sale consideration and capital gains

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 2(1-A) being situated within 8 kms. of municipal limits. Transaction was therefore, to realize the maximum from out of the capital asset. Profits, therefore, not income from adventure in the nature of trade but capital gain.” “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the selling of own land

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

gains. Consequently, Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the resultant accretion on transfer to the subsidiary company as income from business of appellant. Further, it was also contended that the said land should not be treated as 'business asset' and thereby the resultant surplus should not be assessed as business income. 5 3.1. As per the profit & loss account

M/S. THE JAMPETA CO- OP URBAN BANK LTD,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE JOIT CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However

THE JAMPETA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However

LALITHA D.V.RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

195 while making the payments to the said non residents. Further, though the non-residents are in receipt of such 5 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam income from the assessee and are required to file their returns of income disclosing the capital gains, no such returns were filed by them. Hence, order u/s. 163(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing

V.UJAVALA RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

195 while making the payments to the said non residents. Further, though the non-residents are in receipt of such 5 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam income from the assessee and are required to file their returns of income disclosing the capital gains, no such returns were filed by them. Hence, order u/s. 163(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing

V.GAUTAM RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

195 while making the payments to the said non residents. Further, though the non-residents are in receipt of such 5 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam income from the assessee and are required to file their returns of income disclosing the capital gains, no such returns were filed by them. Hence, order u/s. 163(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing

R.SMITHA SHARMA REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

195 while making the payments to the said non residents. Further, though the non-residents are in receipt of such 5 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam income from the assessee and are required to file their returns of income disclosing the capital gains, no such returns were filed by them. Hence, order u/s. 163(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing

V.PRATIMA RAO, REPRESENTED BY DR. P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

195 while making the payments to the said non residents. Further, though the non-residents are in receipt of such 5 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam income from the assessee and are required to file their returns of income disclosing the capital gains, no such returns were filed by them. Hence, order u/s. 163(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing

R.MANI KUMAR REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

195 while making the payments to the said non residents. Further, though the non-residents are in receipt of such 5 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam income from the assessee and are required to file their returns of income disclosing the capital gains, no such returns were filed by them. Hence, order u/s. 163(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing