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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act considered the property as 3 transferred during the assessment year 2016-17. The Ld. AO noticing that the assessee has not filed return of income for the AY 2016-17 believed that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

gains Of business or profession and if there is loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation, the set off shall be first on the business loss as against the business income and then on unabsorbed depreciation. Whet is spoken to under Section 32(2) is as regards set off of unabsorbed depreciation as per clause (ii) of sub section

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 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act and hence it cannot be considered as a capital asset. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. V.MR.P. Firm (1964) 32 CCH 0290 ISCC (ii) Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT & Ors (2009) 310 ITR 0310 (iii) Smt. Gitaben Chandulal Prajapati vs. ACIT, ITA No.2379/Ahd/2013, ITAT

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

capital gains since the investment was made for purchase of land. The assessee 17 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam has given her interpretation and supported her view with various case laws in the note itself. The department has taken a different view which was not foreseen by the assessee and taxed the entire amount

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

capital gains since the investment was made for purchase of land. The assessee 17 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam has given her interpretation and supported her view with various case laws in the note itself. The department has taken a different view which was not foreseen by the assessee and taxed the entire amount

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

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 assessment

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

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 assessment

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

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 assessment

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

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 assessment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital loan. As per section 43A of the act, where an assessee has acquired any asset in any previous year from a country outside India for the purposes of his business or profession and, in consequence of a change in the rate of exchange during any previous year after the acquisition of such asset, there is an increase or reduction

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital loan. As per section 43A of the act, where an assessee has acquired any asset in any previous year from a country outside India for the purposes of his business or profession and, in consequence of a change in the rate of exchange during any previous year after the acquisition of such asset, there is an increase or reduction

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital loan. As per section 43A of the act, where an assessee has acquired any asset in any previous year from a country outside India for the purposes of his business or profession and, in consequence of a change in the rate of exchange during any previous year after the acquisition of such asset, there is an increase or reduction

CHINTAPALLI SUBHAKARA RAO(HUF) ,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-(2)1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.554/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2008-09) Dr.Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (Huf) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Represented By Smt. C.Leela (Kartha) Income Tax D.No.29-10-1, Narasimhanaidu Street Circle-2(1) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aadhc1772N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

32,900.00 B. BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008 (PAN :ABPPC7314K) PARTICULARS AMOUNT 31.03.2008 A. SOURCES OF FUNDS 02 4,846,865.51 02. LOAN FUNDS : - Unsecured loans SCHEDULE NO.2 4,846,865.51 LOAN FUNDS : - Unsecured Loans : - Ch.Subhakara Rao-HUF 02. INVESTMENTS & DEPOSITS 04 5,102,900.00 SCHEDULE NO.4 6 I.T.A. No.554/Viz/2017 Dr. Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (HUF), Vijayawada INVESTMENTS & DEPOSITS - Shares : - Srinivasa

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

CHIGURUPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), 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.202/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Dr.No.32-41-47/28, Near Library Ward-2(2) Machavaram Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan : Abjpc1799A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains by the assessee. It is evident 6 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2023, A.Y.2012-13 Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad., Vijayawada from the record that the valuation report was issued by the DVO with reference to the letter submitted by the AO dated 30.12.2019. But the Ld.CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without considering the valuation report. The Ld.AR therefore pleaded before the Tribunal that

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee, but laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession, while computing income chargeable to tax. The main contention of the Revenue is that under sec. 36(1)(v), the payment made by the assessee as employer could be allowed only in respect of approved gratuity

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee, but laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession, while computing income chargeable to tax. The main contention of the Revenue is that under sec. 36(1)(v), the payment made by the assessee as employer could be allowed only in respect of approved gratuity