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

Bench: Us:

capital gains on the transfer of the subject property. 32. We have given thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below. In our view, the fact that the society, viz. M/s Kothapeta Settibaliga Ramamandriram Committee (supra) had along with the assessee joined as a “Vendor” (i.e., as a vendor

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

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, 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

AKUNURI SAI AVINASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2023 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Akunuri Sai Avinash, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Rep. By Gpa Holder Dr. Akunuri Income Tax, Sai Babu, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 12/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

capital gains based on the date of registration of the sale deed which is in the instant case AY 2016-17. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Grounds No. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee. 8 9. With respect to Ground No.5, the Ld. AR argued that the Ld. DVO has valued the property at Rs. 33,49,000/- by adopting

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

capital gains claimed as\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act and thereby we allow the ground\nraised by the assessee.\n31. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 150/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2006-07) – (APPEAL RELATING TO SANTOSH AGRAWAL).\n32. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1. On the facts and circumstance

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

33,97,714/- during the year under consideration. Please furnish capital gain calculation thereon with supporting documents. 8. Please furnish details of all the bank accounts) held during the year as under: Sr.NO Name Address Account Bank MICR Type of of the of Bank holder(s) Account Code bank Bank name Number account 8. In response to the notice issued

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

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

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

capital gains claimed as\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act and thereby we allow the ground\nraised by the assessee.\n\n31. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\nITA No. 150/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2006-07) – (APPEAL RELATING TO SANTOSH AGRAWAL).\n\n32. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -\n\n\"1. On the facts

MDR CRANES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

section 143(3) of Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 22.12.2016.\n2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is engaged in the business of\nworks contracts and filed its return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on\n26.03.2016 declaring a business loss of Rs.1,33,61,794/- after setting off\nshort-term capital gains

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

33-B, in the\ncircumstances and within the period specified in that section;\n(ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used\nfor any purpose;\n(iii) it manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified\nin the list in the Eleventh Schedule

KALPANA TALUKDAR L/R OF (LATE) UTPAL TALUKDAR,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kalpana Talukdar Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Utpal Talukdar Ward-3(5) Lotus Land Mark Vijayawada Plot No.1, Sector-4 Road No.4, Ayodhya Nagar (Po) Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Apppt1112G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 50C of the Act, on which the assessee is liable for payment of capital gain tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act, since the assessee has not filed any return of income and declared income on capital gains. But, the assessee failed to furnish either return of income or information called

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

gains. Consequently, Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the resultant accretion on transfer to the subsidiary company as income from business of appellant. Further, it was also contended that the said land should not be treated as 'business asset' and thereby the resultant surplus should not be assessed as business income. 5 3.1. As per the profit & loss account

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

Bench: Us:

33,370/-. Thereafter, the A.O./CPC, Bengaluru, vide intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 04.07.2022, had determined the business income of the assessee at Rs. 7,46,116/- as against that returned by the assessee at Rs. 4,45,765/-. On a perusal of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated

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

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

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) of Rs. 2,37,03,359/- derived from the year under consideration. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, wherein his total income was determined at Rs. 2,43,33,430/- after allowing set-off of only an amount of Rs. 71,109/- [as against

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee