GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

35,166 sq ft in his share of land during the FY 2004-05 and leased out the said semi-finished structures to an Educational Society by name M/s. Simhadri Educational Society, vide lease deed dated 22/02/2006. Similarly, Smt. V.A. Krishnaveni (daughter of the assessee) has constructed semi- finished buildings admeasuring 40,993/- sq ft during

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gains of Rs.13,45,910/-. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of section 50C are extracted as under : Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than

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

section 10(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to the provisions of\nsection 96 of REFTLAR Act, 2013.\n3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the land in question\nwhich was subjected to compulsory acquisition under National Highways Act,\n1956 was an agricultural land as per the revenue records and hence the\nsubject transfer

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

section 144C of the IT Act which is dt.31-05-2022. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to adjudicate the following issue raised by assessee in Ground no 4 while filing Form 35: Ground no 4 before CIT(A) “The Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in computing the short term capital gains

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA vs. SRI JIYYANA VENKATARAYUDU (HUF), KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 173/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu Tax, Circle-1, (Huf), Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aahhj3600A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 197(b) of IDS, 2016 where the assessee fails to pay the tax as per the income declared under IDS, 2016 the undisclosed income shall be chargeable to tax in the previous year in which such declaration is made. We find force in the argument made by the Ld. AR that non-payment of tax under

GADIRAJU JHANSIRANI,CHINNAMIRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM

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.253/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Gadiraju Jhansirani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinnamiram. Ward-2, Pan: Bqjpg8177J Bhimavaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 54F of the Act. In response, the assessee’s Representative filed his objections which are extracted by the Ld. AO in his order at pages 3, 4 & 5 and the crux of the issues raised by the assessee in her objection before the Ld. AO is as under: “i) The amendment made in the Finance Act, 2014 in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as their income and paid the subject taxes on the same, and hence, immunity under the “proviso” to Section 201 was available; and (v) that in any event the TDS provisions under Section 194H, if any, would be relevant for the payments to the resident intermediaries and no obligation was cast under Section

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

capital gains (STCG): Rs.61,60,000/-. 9. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements 8 Venkata Ramana

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)

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 was not based on the facts stated in the return of income. b) The notice issued u/s 148A(b) is void ab initio as the grounds mentioned therein were

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

35,451/- after making certain additions, viz. (i) addition of unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act: Rs. 28,82,633/-; (ii) addition of unexplained payment of credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains

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

35. 3. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), NFAC ought to have taken into account that the assessee relied on a tax practitioner assigned with the responsibility of handling the matter, and there was no deliberate neglect on the part of the assessee in failing to comply with the necessary procedural requirements for pursuing the case. 4. The assessee submits that, under

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

Bench: Us:

capital gain of Rs.13.26 crores (supra) disclosed by the assessee company on sale of the subject agricultural 9 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited land and was accepted in the course of the original assessment, inter alia, on two grounds viz., (i). that the reopening of the reassessment by the successor A.O. based on a “change of opinion

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPTNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

35,852/- by making addition of Rs.58,47,609/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.4,30,143/- towards interest on housing loan. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

35,852/- by making addition of Rs.58,47,609/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.4,30,143/- towards interest on housing loan. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before