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

250/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 09/10/2016 and thereafter, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22/03/2021 to assess the income assessable to tax on account of capital gain accrued to the assessee in pursuant to the JDA cum GPA dated 18/03/2016. The Faceless Assessing

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

250/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 09/10/2016 and thereafter, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22/03/2021 to assess the income assessable to tax on account of capital gain accrued to the assessee in pursuant to the JDA cum GPA dated 18/03/2016. The Faceless Assessing

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

250/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 09/10/2016 and thereafter, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22/03/2021 to assess the income assessable to tax on account of capital gain accrued to the assessee in pursuant to the JDA cum GPA dated 18/03/2016. The Faceless Assessing

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

section 250(6) of the Act. The failure to address the substantive issues renders the order null and void in the eyes of law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to recognize that the subject development agreement, upon which the Assessing Officer based the determination of capital gains

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

section 250(6) of the Act. The failure to address the substantive issues renders the order null and void in the eyes of law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to recognize that the subject development agreement, upon which the Assessing Officer based the determination of capital gains

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal. A delay of 403 days occurred in filing the present appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the AO had vacated the impugned addition of Rs.1,16,58,384/- by an order under section 154. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to bonafide reasons

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

VIJAYALAKSHMI DAGGUMALLI,KRISHNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.165/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Vijayalakshmi Daggumalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District, Ward-1(3), Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Cuvpd4504P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan, Am:

section 250(6) of the Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessing officer did not assess the capital gains

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-. The assessee, believing the tax liability was settled due to a subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act, failed to inform the CIT(A) about this development.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition as the AO himself had vacated the addition via a Section

MADHU DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

250 of the IT Act dt. 30.07.2024 is\nnot in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) NFAC in a summary and casual manner confirmed\nthe penalty under section 271D of the IT Act of Rs.46,54,622/- without\nproper consideration of the assessee's submissions.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) NFAC

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

250 of IT Act dated 06-08-2025, confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO') uls. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the IT Act dt.08-03-2025, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. 2. The Leamed CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains on the development agreement to be Rs. 54,03,020/-. The Ld. AO also observed that the assessee and her husband have transferred 490.26 sq yds to M/s. Bhavya Builders and the fair market value of the land is at Rs. 18,000/- per sq yd and therefore the value of the land transferred worked

GOVINDAMMA ISIREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Govindamma Isireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(4), Pan: Afipi4540L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 27/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Thane, Dated 12/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 28/12/2019 For 2 Govindamma Isireddy Vs. Ito

section 250 of the Act, is erroneous, bad in law, violative of the provisions of the Act, and against the facts and evidence on record. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper appreciation of facts

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)

250 made by the assessing officer u/s 69 of the Act by disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term 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

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 arising out of the same. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. That under the facts and circumstances

NAGESH BABU VALIVETI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Bles & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.9/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Accpv7063J Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/04/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

250 of the Act on 03/12/2024, is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, citing the absence of the order passed U/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, along with the challan for appeal fees, as not being enclosed with Form

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 69A of the Act and also as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sreelekha Benerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), the onus is cast on the assessee to explain the nature and accounted source of cash deposited in bank account ie High Denomination Notes [HDN] banned by the Govt., to the satisfaction of the Assessing

VIJAY SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is passed without considering the request of the appellant to grant an additional time and thus bad in law. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in stating that the Appellant has not filed any reply despite of the fact that the Appellant has filed a request for the Adjournment

BALA VENKATA KATYAYANI DASU,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Bench: Us:

250 of the IT Act dt: 17.03.2025 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A), Kochi has erred in law and on facts by treating and dismissing the impugned appeal as infructuous by wrongly observing that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act has merged with the subsequent