MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

capital gains under section 54F of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates requiring the assessee to file the details Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024 Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu called for. On verification of the details, it was found that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1

SEELAMSETTY BALAJI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/-\nImputed Information – sale of immovable\nProperty (SFT – 012)\nSub Registrar Office, Ongole\n(Filer TAN:VPNR02325B)\n32,76,000/-\nImputed Information – sale of immovable\nProperty (SFT – 012)\nSub Registrar Office, Ongole\n(Filer TAN:VPNR02325B)\n32,76,000/-\n3. Assessee has not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment\nyear. Thereafter, considering that the income has escaped

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

capital gains without giving any deduction towards cost of acquisition. 8. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating Rs.33,88,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 10. The appellant craves leave

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

200 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.1,21,128 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. ““1. The order of the learned CIT (A)-10 is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

200 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.1,21,128 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. ““1. The order of the learned CIT (A)-10 is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned

RAMESH SANGHVI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.504/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ramesh Sanghvi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 108, 4-4-933 Royal Plaza 23-2-4-6/4 Kks Towers Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad R.R. Pet, Eluru Telangana - 500001 Andhra Pradesh - 534002 [Pan: Ajeps4401J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 270A stating that assessee has misreported income to the extent of Rs.1,67,44,623/- and hence 200% of the tax payable is levied as penalty which is amounting to Rs.79,66,508/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee contested that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Capital Gains on sale of shares as unexplained. 4 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati 3. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing. Further, the assessee cross-objector has raised an additional ground which reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued