SATYANARAYANA VISWANADHA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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.No.223/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha V. Ito – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpv0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 54F on long term capital gains. Further Ld.AR submitted that though assessee has not made the claim in the return of income, the claim was made before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is not barred from entertaining the additional claim. Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, 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’Ble

section 2(47) of the Act, and hence it is a capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and exigible to tax. Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. 11. With respect to Ground No.3 wherein the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,90,30

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 151 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 22/03/2021, the assessee was required to file his return of income for the year under consideration within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The assessee filed income tax return in response to notice u/s 148 on 07/04/2021 however, the return was validated by the 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 151 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 22/03/2021, the assessee was required to file his return of income for the year under consideration within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The assessee filed income tax return in response to notice u/s 148 on 07/04/2021 however, the return was validated by the assessee

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 151 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 22/03/2021, the assessee was required to file his return of income for the year under consideration within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The assessee filed income tax return in response to notice u/s 148 on 07/04/2021 however, the return was validated by the assessee

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 151 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 22/03/2021, the assessee was required to file his return of income for the year under consideration within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The assessee filed income tax return in response to notice u/s 148 on 07/04/2021 however, the return was validated by the assessee

VENKATARAM SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

gain u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted that ‘capital region’ is similar to municipality / township / cantonment area “or by any other name” include the capital region also. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 2(14)(iii) (a) and (b) of the Act provides as under : Section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

30,560/- for the AY 2011-12. Subsequently, notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued on 2/3/2016. The Assessee’s Representative appeared before the Ld. AO from time to time and furnished the information called for by the Ld. AO. Not satisfied with the submissions made

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

30\nSr. Private Secretary\nITAT, Visakhapatnam", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a builder, which was later cancelled. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the consideration mentioned in the JDA as income and levied capital gains tax. The assessee also received a small amount of interest income. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's additions

UPPADA KESAVAJANARDHANA RAO,FLORIDA, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , 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. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

capital gains of Rs.99,76,950/- returned by assessee.” Issue “With respect to the sale consideration arrived by AO by including the Stamp duty Value of UDS / land, it is submitted that since assessee owns the land already and what he received under JDA is only the Built-up area in lieu of transfer of 1626.20 UDS/land to the builder

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

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

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

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

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

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective

NAGESWARA RAO VISWANADHA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

30[ten] per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration.]” 9. From the bare reading of the section

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

30% of the amount can be disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(i) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 16 7. All the above grounds

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

30% of the amount can be disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(i) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 16 7. All the above grounds

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

30% of the amount can be disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(i) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 16 7. All the above grounds