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

Bench: Us:

Capital gains” on the sale of the subject properties, deem it apposite to cull out the facts involved in the present case. 16. As is discernible from the record, the assessee along with M/s Kothapeta Settibaliga Ramamandriram Committee, Rajahmundry, had during the subject year executed a sale deed dated 13.06.2019 of land admeasuring 10,164 sq. yards situated at Rajahmundry

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 tax liability by the authorities below. If that be so, the Assessee-HUF in the present case, in our opinion, complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under section 54 of the Act for the entire investment in the properties and securities

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997-98 also cannot be sustained.” 10.7 The Hon'ble High Court has decided this issue by considering an identical JDA as well as supplementary agreement between the parties after taking into consideration of an earlier judgment in case of Shri Potla Nageswara Rao vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) and held that for attracting

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997-98 also cannot be sustained.” 10.7 The Hon'ble High Court has decided this issue by considering an identical JDA as well as supplementary agreement between the parties after taking into consideration of an earlier judgment in case of Shri Potla Nageswara Rao vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) and held that for attracting

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997-98 also cannot be sustained.” 10.7 The Hon'ble High Court has decided this issue by considering an identical JDA as well as supplementary agreement between the parties after taking into consideration of an earlier judgment in case of Shri Potla Nageswara Rao vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) and held that for attracting

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gains tax during the assessment year 1997-98 also cannot be sustained.” 10.7 The Hon'ble High Court has decided this issue by considering an identical JDA as well as supplementary agreement between the parties after taking into consideration of an earlier judgment in case of Shri Potla Nageswara Rao vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) and held that for attracting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

21 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 in the petition filed under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is not maintainable and thus, should be rejected. 16. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

21 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 in the petition filed under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is not maintainable and thus, should be rejected. 16. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

21 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 in the petition filed under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is not maintainable and thus, should be rejected. 16. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

21 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 in the petition filed under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is not maintainable and thus, should be rejected. 16. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARIPALLI VIMALA DEVI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

21,220/- respectively against the Doc. No. 98/2004 and 3772/2004. The property was purchased on 9/1/2004 and 30/08/2004 respectively. Subsequently, during the year 2007 the property was mortgaged with State Bank of India against the term loan of Rs. 3 Crs granted to M/s. Amaravathi Inn Pvt Ltd., wherein the assessee and her late husband were Directors. Further, another term

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

21,333 – Rs. 1,38,33,331] was not offered by the assessee to tax by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the Long Term Capital Gains

LAKSHMI TANUJA SUGGUNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

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

capital gains. In response, assessee has not filed any reply.\nTherefore, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of\nPage No. 2\njudgement under section 144 of the Act and determined income of the assessee\nat Rs.14,24,340/- and raised demand of Rs.8,05,510/-.\n3.\nOn being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains including the cash receipts while filing the return of income. Even though the ignorance of law may or may not constitute reasonable excuse, if it is merely technical or venial breach, no penalty can be levied because levy of penalty would necessarily imply Page No. 8 I.T.A.No.361/VIZ/2024 Madhu Devi I.T.A.No. 362/VIZ/2024 Rakesh Kumar Jain existence of some

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

capital gains (STCG): Rs.61,60,000/-. 9. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements 8 Venkata Ramana

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated in the return of income. b) The notice issued u/s 148A(b) is void ab initio as the grounds mentioned therein were

PAVANCHANDRA CHITFUNDS PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Us:

Section 50C of the Act by the A.O at Rs.66,67,806/-. However, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that the A.O., without giving any cogent reason, had declined the specific claims for deduction of certain expenses that were considered by the assessee company while computing the capital gain on the transfer of 967.32 sq. yards