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

capital gains so computed under section 45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the assessee. The subject issue was not for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and hence, the same doesn't support the case of the revenue

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

Bench: Us:

2,00,00,000/- + Rs. 3,50,00,000/- + Rs. 3,50,00,000/-) is an allowable deduction from the gross sale consideration of Rs. 12,04,45,000/-. As per the provisions of section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the income chargeable under the head “Capital Gains

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)

gains on the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade was realised during the assessment year 2013-14. As per the provisions of section 45(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

45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause, (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (I) shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new asset is transferred.'. The assessee

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)

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: 67[Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Further, the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the agricultural nature of the land or agricultural activities conducted on it. Hence, Assessing Officer treated the sale consideration of ₹4,00,00,000/- as long-term capital gains. Thereafter, Assessing Officer worked out the capital gain of Rs.3

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. 3.3 The ld. Commissioner forwarded the said additional evidences which have been filed by the Assessee in support of its additional grounds of appeal, to the AO for furnishing remand report, in pursuance to which the AO carried out the field enquiry and submitted the remand report which is as under:- “2. Originally Assessee

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)

2. Originally, the assessee has filed as many as 11 grounds of appeal along with Form No.36. Since the grounds of appeal are argumentative, the assessee filed revised and concise grounds on 10.09.2018. In the revised grounds of appeal, the assessee raised 4 grounds in total and all the grounds of appeal are related to the deduction

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]

capital asset) situated in the municipal area of Tanuku Revenue Mandal with Registered Survey No.846/2 into stock in trade for sale of developed plots. The Ld.PCIT observed that as per section 45(2) of the Act, the profits or gains

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45) of that Act. AO income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the "total amount of income referred to in Section 5”. Secondly, it must be ”computed in the manner laid down in this Act”. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45) of that Act. AO income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the "total amount of income referred to in Section 5”. Secondly, it must be ”computed in the manner laid down in this Act”. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45) of that Act. AO income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the "total amount of income referred to in Section 5”. Secondly, it must be ”computed in the manner laid down in this Act”. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains in the light of section 54F of the Act, the assessee vide letter dated 16/02/2015 submitted that the land was purchased on 11/03/1997 as a capital asset and subsequently after approval of layout, land was divided into plots. The property was subsequently sold after six years and the said transaction was done only to fetch more income

SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains in the light of section 54F of the Act, the assessee vide letter dated 16/02/2015 submitted that the land was purchased on 11/03/1997 as a capital asset and subsequently after approval of layout, land was divided into plots. The property was subsequently sold after six years and the said transaction was done only to fetch more income

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 of the company. Hence, the Ld.Pr.CIT found that the aggregate fair market value of the shares that exceeded the consideration paid is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act and found that the AO has not examined the issue during the assessment proceedings. Therefore issued show cause notice and called for the explanation

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 45(2) of the Act and as to why the exemption claimed u/s 54F should not be disallowed? Since, the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In response there to, the assessee filed a letter stating that he is an agriculturist and not having any residential house, sold the agricultural

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gains of Rs.13,45,910/-. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of section 50C are extracted as under : Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— 6 (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset