THE ITO, WARD-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SMT. ANKITHAM INDRANI JAGGA ROW,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

200 per square yard as on 1.4.1981. Therefore indexed cost of acquisition (16,42,000 x 632/100) Long Term Capital Gains Rs.55,89,227/- 2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the co-owners have executed the sale deed for total sale consideration of Rs.4,79,00,000/-, whereas, the guideline value

ANKITHAM VENKATA MONISH SAMARENDRA ROW,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

200 per square yard as on 1.4.1981. Therefore indexed cost of acquisition (16,42,000 x 632/100) Long Term Capital Gains Rs.55,89,227/- 2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the co-owners have executed the sale deed for total sale consideration of Rs.4,79,00,000/-, whereas, the guideline value

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

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

gain adopting cost of acquisition and improvement at Rs.79,60,200/-. Ld. AO thereafter passed a consequential order dated 04.04.2025 determining the Long-Term Capital Loss at Rs.20,00,615/-. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. AO issued show-cause notice calling for objections for levying of penalty. Since assessee

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 = Rs. 55. If a person was having 10 equity shares of the above company with him, after the bonus shares issue, it would become 20. However value of the ten equity shares (10 x Rs. 110) is the same as value of 20 shares (20 x Rs. 55) after the bonus shares issue. This in other words would mean

GIRIJA DEVI KOMMAREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1). , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.188/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Girija Devi Kommareddy Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.9-29-24/B, Cbm Compound Income Tax Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adfpk3441H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

200 sq.yds of undivided and unspecified share of land to two different persons and arrived at long term capital gains of Rs.40,26,965/- on the sale transaction. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act by showing an investment in a residential property measuring 3000 sft. worth Rs.41,10,000/- and offered to tax nil long term

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

KAKILETI SATYANARAYANA,MANDAPETA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMALAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

200/- and agricultural income of Rs.60,000/-. A search and seizure was conducted in the case of Vaibhav Kankatala Group on 09/01/2009 and certain incriminating documents relating to the assessee were seized. The case has (Chennu Bhaskara Rao) been centralized to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. A notice u/sec. 153C was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/- by taking Rs.4,17,00,000/- towards income u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. The appellant preferred an appeal against the 143(3) order before CIT Appeal and the CIT Appeal allowed the appeal vide order dated 18.09.2020. Further the department filed an appeal before ITAT against the relief granted by CIT (Appeal). The Honble ITAT vide order

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

200/- 2009-10 - ` 3,06,000/- 2010-11 - ` 3,66,000/- 2011-12 - ` 3,96,000/- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. disallowed the salary paid to the Joint Secretary by applying section

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

200/- 2009-10 - ` 3,06,000/- 2010-11 - ` 3,66,000/- 2011-12 - ` 3,96,000/- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. disallowed the salary paid to the Joint Secretary by applying section

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

200/- 2009-10 - ` 3,06,000/- 2010-11 - ` 3,66,000/- 2011-12 - ` 3,96,000/- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. disallowed the salary paid to the Joint Secretary by applying section

GHANTA PUNNA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

200/- was also offered to capital gains tax. 6.1. The Ld.AR further stated that in the instant case, the assessee has explained the source stating that the deposits were made by his son on sale of agricultural lands and in support, unregistered sale agreements were also produced. The AO did not make out a case that the explanation offered

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURYA MANGAPATHI RAJU PENMETSA,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blejcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Surya Mangapathi Raju Visakhapatnam. Penmetsa, D.No. 11-9-6/2, Flat No. 90, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ahapp 1548 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain of Rs. 90,93,422/-; cash credits of Rs. 5,83,000/- from the unknown source; income from salary of Rs. 18,00,000/- and income from house property of Rs. 67,200/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has assessed the income of the assessee of Rs.1,15,43,620/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has issued a notice under

SRI VELURI MADHUKAR, ,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the 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.321/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sri Veluri Madhukar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of S/O Smt.Surya Prakasam Income Tax D.No.80-32-7, Sarada Nagar Circle-1(1) A.V.Apparao Road Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abqpv8089D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20 .03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,95,250/- and the assessment was completed on total income of Rs.11,03,450/- and the Assessing Officer(AO) raised the demand of Rs.2,03,990/-.During the assessment

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SMT. MARY BERNADETTE LARIVE, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

200/- on 22/06/2009 and the assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on a total income of Rs. 89,09,360/-. In the assessment, the AO had accepted the sale consideration at Rs.60.00 lakhs and also allowed exemption u/sec. 54F of the Act. 4. On the additions made in the assessment order, the assessee went on appeal before