JIYYANA VENKATRAYUDU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.138/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jiyyana Venkatrayudu, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Kakinada. Income Tax, Pan: Axppj 2351 K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 197(b) of the IDS, 2016 and concluded that the income declared shall be treated as income of the assessee in the year of declaration and brought the amount of Rs.50,59,580/- to tax U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. However, the Ld. AO also issued a show cause notice dated 2/12/2019 as to why the undisclosed

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARIPALLI VIMALA DEVI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

gains the assessee sought deduction of the amount spent to clear the mortgage. The High Court held that the capital asset had become the property of the assessee by succession or inheritance on the death of the previous owner under section 49(1) and the cost of acquisition of the asset is to be deemed to be the cost

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) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

197/-represent the principal amount taken by the assessee for the purpose of carrying on business operations therefore it is capital receipt but not revenue receipt. The Ld.AR argued that it is settled issue that waiver of principal amount is capital receipt, neither can be taxed u/s 28(iv) nor u/s 41(1) of the Act. In the instant case

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

197/-represent the principal amount taken by the assessee for the purpose of carrying on business operations therefore it is capital receipt but not revenue receipt. The Ld.AR argued that it is settled issue that waiver of principal amount is capital receipt, neither can be taxed u/s 28(iv) nor u/s 41(1) of the Act. In the instant case