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)

capital among its members in the course of their banking business. Adverting to the fact that the phrase "business of banking" is not defined in the Income-tax Act, this court referred to the definition of the expression "banking" appearing in section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act to come to the conclusion that the income received

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)

capital among its members in the course of their banking business. Adverting to the fact that the phrase "business of banking" is not defined in the Income-tax Act, this court referred to the definition of the expression "banking" appearing in section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act to come to the conclusion that the income received

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

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

31,36,000/- amounting to Rs. 14,42,560/- as deduction from the capital gains for the assessee. Accordingly, this ground No.6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 12. With respect to Ground No.7 regarding exemption claimed U/s. 54F of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed the entire share of building received

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

2(14) of the Act and therefore no capital gains income is chargeable to tax in respect of the said transfer of the land. 6.1 Ld. DR vehemently argued that law does not permit to change the stand which has taken at the initial stage and new claim cannot be entertained without revising the original return of income

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the set off of carried forward depreciation against the addition made u/s 68 of IT Act. In this case, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.Nil after adjusting brought forward losses. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs.3

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

Capital Gains (“LTCG) on the compulsory acquisition of the subject land which the assessee himself had offered for tax in his return of income. 13. We have heard the authorized representatives for both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record in the context of the issue under consideration. 14. Ostensibly, the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. ANDHRA TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

gains. The appellant will be entitled to carry forward business loss of Rs.1,94,62,300/- only apart from long term capital loss to be carry forward as determined by the AO. The AO is directed to modify the order accordingly. The grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are allowed.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) also relied upon

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

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.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gain tax is not attracted. The transaction between the closer relatives should not be seen as introducing black money or evasion of the tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction is within the family and close relatives and covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act and there

MADDIMISETTI SRINIVASU,TANUKU vs. THE ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDARY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

2) of the Act, the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into or its treatment by him as stock-in-trade of business carried on by him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of the previous year in which such stock-in-trade is sold

PUPPALA GOPI KRISHNA,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2,31,59,000/- as long term capital gains [LTCG] on sale of vacant site. In the computation submitted before the Ld. AO, the assessee offered net LTCG of Rs. 1,04,74,973/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement aggregating to Rs. 1,26,84,027/- and accordingly revised the total income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. DANDU BRAHMANANDAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.168,83,71,070/- on 27.09.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee was a major stake holder, holding 10.34% of shares in M/s Tirumala Milk Products

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. BATTINI NAGESWARA RAO, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.168,83,71,070/- on 27.09.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee was a major stake holder, holding 10.34% of shares in M/s Tirumala Milk Products

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

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, Range-2, Visakhapatnam. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 4/9/2018 where

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, BHIMAVARAM vs. YENDANGANDHI LARGE SIZED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.243/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Yendagandhi Large Sized Ward-1 Co-Operative Society Ltd. Bhimavaram D.No.4-13, K.K.Road Yendagandi, West Godavari Dist [Pan : Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.01/Viz/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.243/Viz/2022) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Yendagandhi Large Sized Co- Income Tax Officer Operative Society Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.4-13, K.K.Road Bhimavaram Yendagandi, West Godavari Dist [Pan : Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 10.10.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless

31,93,265 7,171 7171 Dividends 3,70,365 3,70,365 2,91,39,357 2,91,39,357 The Assessing Officer(AO) noticed that a part of the above income aggregating to Rs.2,59,54,906/- admitted to have been received from extending credit facilities to members was interest income received from the following : i) Interest

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

GANTA SRINIVASA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

31,950) was brought to tax. The AO also rejected the assessee’s claim for proportionate share of expenses incurred, out of the total expenses paid to CMDA towards development and premium FSI charges amounting to Rs.16,72,20,000/-, which was Rs.5,18,95,862/- claimed in the return of income. 2. Against the order