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

2. The Leamed CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer (JAO') u/s 148 is invalid in terms of section 151A as per which notice u/s 148 shall be issued through automated allocation by National Faceless Assessing Officer ('NFAC') and this action of JAO rendered the entire re- assessment proceedings void

MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

capital gains as well as business income is exigible? In this context, it is relevant to examine the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Act. Section 45(2): [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1

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

Bench: Us:

section 48 (1) of the Act. The same view was taken in CIT Vs. Shakuntala Rajeshwar (1986) 160 ITR 840 (Del). 5.14 In the case of CIT Vs. Eagle Theatres (2012) 205 Taxmann 449 (Del), it has been held that the amount paid to tenant for vacating the premises is allowable as deduction while computing the capital gains

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

1 of section 54F and the Explanation for the purpose of net consideration. The AO not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee adopted the market 3 I.T.A. No.443/Viz/2018 Smt.Kalva Uma Devi, Visakhapatnam value as assessed by the Stamps and Registration Authorities as per section 50C of the Act and determined the capital gains and allowed the deduction

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. ALAPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual derived income from salary, house property, share income from partnership firms, other sources besides agricultural income, filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,77,840/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The case of the assessee (Alapati Rajendra Prasad) was selected

SRI UMA KAMANDALESWARA CO - OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.,ATHREYAPURAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blesri Uma Kamandaleswara Vs. Addl.Cit, Kakinada Co-Op Rural Bank Ltd., Ryali, Range, Kakinada. Athreyapuram Mandalm, East Godavari District. Pan No. Aadas 4663 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) certain types of co-operative societies but (2) confined only to the activities listed in sub-clauses (i) to (vii). In other words, clause (a) of sub-section (2) confers a benefit only upon co-operative societies, but the benefit is restricted only to some and not to all of the activities of such co-operative societies

THE SRI GOWRI COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. The Sri Gowri Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Co-Operative Society, Visakhapatnam. D.No.49-34-32/1, Konathala Complex, Akkayyapalem Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 8140 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) certain types of co-operative societies but (2) confined only to the activities listed in sub-clauses (i) to (vii). In other words, clause (a) of sub-section (2) confers a benefit only upon co-operative societies, but the benefit is restricted only to some and not to all of the activities of such co-operative societies

VIVEK INDUSTRIES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 08/09/2021, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has 2 Vivek Industries vs. ITO assailed the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both

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 which he worked out at 20% of Rs. 9,29,793 does not hold any water. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the quantification of the TDS deductible by the assessee under section 195 of the Act was correctly made by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain at Rs. 1,31,92,445/-. (Appana Hari Naga Venkat Rao) While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer adopted the deemed consideration under section 50C of Rs. 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAJA RAO PARACHURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

2(47)(v) of the Act r.w. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TPA"), and computed long-term capital gain of Rs. 11,26,01,500/- in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2013–14. Accordingly, the A.O, vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 30.10.2019, determined the income

SANNIDHI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY (HUF),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Capital gains" and shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which such Page No. 8 I.T.A. No. 230/VIZ/2024 Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (HUF) amount was received and the income taxable shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (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)

capital gains is to develop and encourage the housing and infrastructure needs in India which is of paramount importance. Therefore, invariably, the reinvestment should be in a residential house located in India only and as per provisions of section 1(2

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

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

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

1) Where, in the case of an assessee being an individual, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or after the date on which the transfer took place

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

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.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gain in purchase of new house. Thus, on a plain interpretation of section 54(1) of the Act, it has to be concluded that if the assessee purchases a new house property one year before or two years after the date of transfer of original asset, it is entitled to claim deduction under section 54 of the Act irrespective

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

section 2(14) of the Act, and thereby the same may be exempted u/sec. 10(1) of the Act. 2. The ld. AO has wrongly assessed the agricultural income received by the Assessee as income from other sources without considering the fact that the land situated in Kesarapalli Village is an agricultural land and is in cultivation till the current

R.VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE R. VENKATESWARA RAO,LINGAPALEM MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (Wife & Legal Heir Of Late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Agfpr6873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 54F of the Act. With this observation, we remit the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.” 10 ITA No.121/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi, West Godavari Dist. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F from the long term capital gains. Though assesses did not make the claim

VENKATARAM SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

2(14)(iii) either under sub clause (a) or (b) of the Act, hence the same cannot be considered as capital asset within the meaning of this section. Hence, no capital gain tax can be charged on the sale transaction of this land entered by the assessee. This is supported by the order of Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal