THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. ALAPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(14) of the Act. We therefore by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the aforementioned case-laws, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for indexation cost for the land sold 3480 sq.yds., dated 12/07/2012 relates back to F.Y. 2005-06 and he is entitled for the sale

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

D.USHA REDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.602/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) D Usha Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer 312 Mvv Mk Royal Gardens Ward 1(4) Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acppd9238E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains (on the ground that no evidence was produced) without giving opportunity to the appellant. Hence the appellant prays for relief. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in his finding that the credit in the bank account amounting to Rs.55,00,000/- was not proved though the appellant has proved it by filing confirmation letter. Hence, the appellant prays

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Capital Gains as directed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show-cause notice dated 27.12.2018, 31.05.2021 and 21.06.2021. In response, assessee cited various judicial pronouncements wherein the Ld. AO has failed to mark the proper limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act under which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, , ELURU vs. THE ELURU CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, ELURU

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Ay:2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. The Eluru Cooperative Urban Tax, Bank Limited, Circle-1, Eluru. Eluru. Pan: Aaabt 0168 L (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) C.O. No.108/Viz/2019 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay :2010-11) The Eluru Cooperative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Eluru. Circle-1, Pan: Aaabt 0168 L Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

section 36(1)(viia). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any evidence whatsoever to show that the claim of the assessee is as per the RBI guidelines either during the re-assessment or before the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

GVK POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

section 14A of the Act. The department did not make out a case that the assessee has received the 20 I.T.A. No.553/Viz/2018 M/s GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Kadiyam dividend income or exempt income in the year under consideration. This Tribunal in the case of ACN Infotech(India)Pvt Ltd vs ACIT circle1(1), Visakhapatnam, ITA No.79/Viz/2017 dated 28.11.2018 has held

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

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

gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

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

36,888/- which is not in dispute. The lump-sum consideration for sale of three wind mills is Rs.24,00,93,258/- which is also not in dispute. Thus, the Long Term Capital Gains is the difference between lump-sum consideration and net-worth of 12 I.T.A. No.497/Viz/2019 and CO No.130/Viz/2019, A.Y.2013-14 M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd., Visakhapatnam undertaking. Accordingly

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

gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

1)(b) (New) w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 3. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified and the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in denying the exemption of Rs.1,23,53,826 claimed by the assessee under section 54F and bringing to tax the total amount as unexplained under section 69A. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024

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

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SRIKAKAULAM vs. SRI VASAVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED`, RAJAM,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.606/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs M/S Sri Vasavi Polymers P.Ltd. Ward-3 S.No.125 & 126, Anthakapalli Srikakulam Rajam [Pan : Aaecs1849J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-9, Hyderabad In Ita No.10300/Cit(A)-9, Hyd/2017-18 Dated 09.08.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. With The Delay Of 1 Day. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition & Submitted That The Delay Was Due To The 2

capital u/s 41(1) of the Act, therefore, argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and no interference is called for. The Ld.AR further argued that the AO’s case is the addition u/s 41(1) of the Act, but not the case of section 28(i)/(iv) of the Act, hence, submitted that the department

SRINIVASA HAIR INDUSTRIES,ELURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., ELURU

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.194/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) M/S Srinivasa Hair Industries Asst.Commissioner Of P.B.No.8 Income Tax Eastern Street Circle-1 Eluru Eluru [Pan : Aalfs8434M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Citdr

section 41.” 15.1. Similarly in the case of Satpal & Sons (HUF)v. ACIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi* 85 taxman.com 283, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi has also taken similar view. In the instant case, the assessee has transferred the trade credit balances to the capital accounts without any confirmation from the trade creditor for cessation or remission