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

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

36,000/- amounting to Rs. 14,42,560/- as deduction from the capital gains for the assessee. Accordingly, this ground No.6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 12. With respect to Ground No.7 regarding exemption claimed U/s. 54F of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed the entire share of building received

R.VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE R. VENKATESWARA RAO,LINGAPALEM MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (Wife & Legal Heir Of Late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Agfpr6873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

36,862 x 632 / 480 : Rs.1,80,200 Long Term Capital Gains : Rs.4,91,800 5.2.1. Similarly, the AO arrived at the sale consideration of built up area at Rs.27,30,000/- @Rs.600/- per sq.ft. including car parking area for four flats the total built up area was 4550 sq.ft., which was received by the assessee towards his share. Accordingly

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.497/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Circle-3(1) D.No.50-1-51/1 Visakhapatnam Asr Nagar, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.130/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.497/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.50-1-51/1 Income Tax Asr Nagar Circle-3(1) Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व कीओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2020

section 48 and 49 as it is required in the case of normal capital gains. It means that there is no need to consider indexed cost of acquisition or improvement in the case of slump sale. In the instant case the net-worth is arrived at Rs.3,07,36

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. The Ld.DR submitted that the base rate fixed by the DVO was Rs.25,000/- per sq.yd and went on allowing the deductions / allowances on the base rate for factors, such as location, lease hold right of lessees, impact of legal restrictions, encumbrances, building of hotel, co owners, pollution, availability of buyers, presence of weaker section at the main

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. The Ld.DR submitted that the base rate fixed by the DVO was Rs.25,000/- per sq.yd and went on allowing the deductions / allowances on the base rate for factors, such as location, lease hold right of lessees, impact of legal restrictions, encumbrances, building of hotel, co owners, pollution, availability of buyers, presence of weaker section at the main

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. The Ld.DR submitted that the base rate fixed by the DVO was Rs.25,000/- per sq.yd and went on allowing the deductions / allowances on the base rate for factors, such as location, lease hold right of lessees, impact of legal restrictions, encumbrances, building of hotel, co owners, pollution, availability of buyers, presence of weaker section at the main

SMT. T.V. PADMAVATHI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Smt.T.V.Padmavathi Vs. Income Tax Officer 40-15-11, Flat No.3 Ward-2(2) Sudha Apartments Vijayawada Greenland Hotel Road Vijayawada – 520 010 [Pan : Acxpt4644C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

36,440/- from the withdrawals from the capital account of the firm in equity share capital of Rameshwar Steel and Power Limited during the year 2006-07 and has not received any dividend or interest from the said company. The said amount was outstanding in the impugned assessment year also. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed from the books of accounts

YENUGULA CHANDRA RAO,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleyenugula Chandra Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Prop : M/S. Rajanu Jewellers, Vijayawada. D.No. 11-49-336B, Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aadpy 5910 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

36-11-7 at Mogalraja Puram, Vijayawada on 23/07/2004 to Paturi Krishna Babu through Sale Agreement-cum-GPA registration. Later, GPA holder sold the property on 28/05/2012 to third party, hence, no tax liability to him for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer has considered the explanation and rejected the same by observing that agreement of Sale

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

capital gains.\n16. Ostensibly, as per the record to which our attention has been\ndrawn by the Ld. AR., we find that the agricultural land of the assessee,\nadmeasuring 111 sq. meters situated at Gudavalli Mandal,\nSubbavaram, District: Visakhapatnam, was compulsorily acquired as\nper - Award No. 8 of 2022, dated 04.02.2022 under Section 3E(1) of the\nNational Highways

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARIPALLI VIMALA DEVI, 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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

36,716 E Total capital gain 2,48,63,284 F Assessee’s share of capital gain = 1,86,47,463 (75% of ‘E’) Page No. 8 I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 Saripalli Vimala Devi However, it is noticed from the order of the Ld. AO that the Ld. AO has not considered Rs. 5 Crs as cost of acquisition as claimed

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 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

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 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

THE JAMPETA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of the Act should be given wide meaning. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The dispute between the parties revolves around a narrow compass. The claim of the assessee is that the amount paid towards interest on capital is a charge on profit and hence allowable as deduction while computing

M/S. THE JAMPETA CO- OP URBAN BANK LTD,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE JOIT CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of the Act should be given wide meaning. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The dispute between the parties revolves around a narrow compass. The claim of the assessee is that the amount paid towards interest on capital is a charge on profit and hence allowable as deduction while computing

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act should be given wide meaning. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The dispute between the parties revolves around a narrow compass. The claim of the assessee is that the amount paid towards interest on capital is a charge on profit and hence allowable as deduction while computing

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act should be given wide meaning. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The dispute between the parties revolves around a narrow compass. The claim of the assessee is that the amount paid towards interest on capital is a charge on profit and hence allowable as deduction while computing

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act should be given wide meaning. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The dispute between the parties revolves around a narrow compass. The claim of the assessee is that the amount paid towards interest on capital is a charge on profit and hence allowable as deduction while computing