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

Bench: Us:

section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the income chargeable under the head “Capital Gains” shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, the following amounts, namely (i) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such a transfer; (ii) The cost

KALVA UMADEVI ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHPATNAM

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.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

2 years from the date of transfer or the assessee required to construct one residential house before one year or within 3 years from the date of transfer. In the above event, the quantum of allowable deduction is, if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original house, the whole

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)

2. The Ld. AO is not correct in charging interest under 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

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

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

ADABALA MANMOHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Mr. Adabala Manmohan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Vpnao 1959 G Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

195 of the Act, the assessee is required to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-residents. In the instant case, the assessee required to deduct the tax at source on the sums chargeable to capital gains. The assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source, therefore the assessee is liable for payment tax and interest

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 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 (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

2) of Section 144B, shall be made in a faceless manner as per the procedure therein contemplated. Accordingly, we are of the view that as the pre-amended section 144B of the Act contemplated the framing of the assessment in a faceless manner, therefore, no infirmity emerges from the order passed by the FAO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

VOBILINENI SURYA PRASAD,,KAKINADA vs. THE DCIT(IT & TP),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vobilineni Surya Prasad Vs. Ddit (It & Tp) D.No.67-3-14/2 Visakhapatnam Kakinada East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Acopv9063E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains, education cess @2% and secondary and higher educational cess @1% and interest @1%p.m. and the details are as under : No. of months for Tax which interest u/s Interest u/s Amount deductible Total amount 201(1A) is payable 201(1A) @ 1% Paid (Rs.) @20.60% payable (Rs.) from April

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

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

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

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,36,997/- out of disallowance of Rs. 17,71,587/- made by the assessing officer towards Bonus & Ex gratia payable. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.20,76,621 out of disallowance