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

28,396 = Rs. 5,20,91,366/-) shall be the deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains. We therefore direct the Ld. AO to compute the capital gains adopting the above deemed sale consideration. Accordingly, this ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. With respect to Ground No.6 the 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)

Section 54F of the Act with reference to the total investment of Rs. 3,28,15,000/-. 11.The issue regarding whether the investment in a capital asset is required to be sourced from the capital gain

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

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

section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer

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

section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer

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

section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer

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

section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer

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)

capital gains as per section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected for adoption of SRO rate, hence, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in order to ascertain the market value of the said property as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. The DVO furnished the valuation report valuing the property

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

capital gains as per section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected for adoption of SRO rate, hence, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in order to ascertain the market value of the said property as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. The DVO furnished the valuation report valuing the property

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)

capital gains as per section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected for adoption of SRO rate, hence, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in order to ascertain the market value of the said property as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. The DVO furnished the valuation report valuing the property

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

28,000/-. Assessee has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing the capital gains derived from the sale of immovable property. Therefore, re-assessment proceedings were initiated after taking prior approval of the Competent Authority by issuing notice under section

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

28-02-2024, wherein the capital gains declared by the assessee\nwas redetermined at Rs. 35,77,240/-.\n7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the\nCIT(A). The assessee, inter alia, had claimed before the CIT(A) that the\ncompensation received by him on the compulsory acquisition of his land\nas per the award

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 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or notification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment…” 6. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also observed that had the assessee constructed a separate and self contained residential unit after

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 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or notification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment…” 6. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also observed that had the assessee constructed a separate and self contained residential unit after

GANTA SRINIVASA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

28,900/-. Since the return of income was filed beyond the due date for filing the returns of income, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 148 and taken up the case for assessment. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO found that the assessee was the co-owner of land admeasuring 1.45 acres located at old survey No.318/3A1

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GANTA SRINIVASA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

28,900/-. Since the return of income was filed beyond the due date for filing the returns of income, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 148 and taken up the case for assessment. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO found that the assessee was the co-owner of land admeasuring 1.45 acres located at old survey No.318/3A1

GANTA SRINIVASA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

28,900/-. Since the return of income was filed beyond the due date for filing the returns of income, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 148 and taken up the case for assessment. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO found that the assessee was the co-owner of land admeasuring 1.45 acres located at old survey No.318/3A1

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

28 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 Whether the above observations are enough to conclude that the assessment of the capital gain as long-term capital gain in assessment year 2001-02 by the Assessing Officer was only a protective assessment? We have already seen the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalji