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

capital\ngains, arising on account of compulsory acquisition, from Income-tax in view\nof section 96 of REFTLAR Act and Section 2(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961.\n3. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have appreciated that as per provisions of\nsection 96 of REFTLAR Act and Section 2(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, the\nland compulsorily

VENKATARAM SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

gain on sale of land. Secondly, it was not shown that the authority concerned with the development of the areas is a municipality as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. As per the provisions of sec. 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the agricultural land will fall in the definition of 'Capital asset' only if it is situate

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

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

37,025/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the AO found that the assessee has sold the vacant land for a consideration of Rs.60.20 lakhs resulting in capital gains of Rs.58.72 lakhs and claimed the deduction u/s 54F for acquiring the residential house. The JCIT has given direction u/s 144A in F.No.144A/JCIT/ELR/2015-16 dated 29.03.2016. The facts

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

37,025/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the AO found that the assessee has sold the vacant land for a consideration of Rs.60.20 lakhs resulting in capital gains of Rs.58.72 lakhs and claimed the deduction u/s 54F for acquiring the residential house. The JCIT has given direction u/s 144A in F.No.144A/JCIT/ELR/2015-16 dated 29.03.2016. The facts

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

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

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

section 37(1), any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sec 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

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

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

section 37(1), any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sec 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

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

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

section 37(1), any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sec 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

P V RAGHAVULU,PATHEBADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.78/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) P.V.Raghavulu Vs. Income Tax Officer Eluru Ward-2 [Pan : Aaihp9021Q] Eluru अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Satyasai Rath,Cit-Dr

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). With regard to long term capital gains, the learned CIT(A) observed that the learned Assessing Officer’s finding that the amount of Rs.6,25,88,513/- (being saleable Fair Market Value of developed

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)

37,75,000/-, relevant to the A.Y.2012-13. The assessee did not file return of income for the A.Y.2012-13. In view of the non filing of the return, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and the assessee admitted income from real estate transactions at Rs.38,000/-, loss from sale of property, popularly known as “leela mahal

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

37,88,002/- [Rs. 6,76,21,333 – Rs. 1,38,33,331] 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

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 Rs. 2,37

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital\nreceipt or revenue receipt and would thus, be taxable. However, thereafter, and in order to put an\nend to the dispute, the legislature by way of inserting clauses 28 (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie)\nhas made the said incentives taxable under the head of \"profits and gains of business and\nprofession\".\n7.2 Section 80-IB provides for deductions

SHAMROCK APPARELS,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.346/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2023-24) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(1) Shamrock Apparels D.No. 9-29-20, 2Nd Floor Income Tax Office Siripuram, Visakhapatnam Pratyakshakar Bhavan Pin Code: 530003 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acpfs3513B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

37,00,120/- for the A.Y. 2023-24. The Centralized Processing Center (in short “CPC”) processed the return and issued the Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act on 07.11.2024. In the Intimation, the CPC made adjustment of Rs.31,22,331/- under the head Long term capital gains

GOVINDAMMA ISIREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Govindamma Isireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(4), Pan: Afipi4540L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 27/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Thane, Dated 12/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 28/12/2019 For 2 Govindamma Isireddy Vs. Ito

capital gains made by the Appellant at Rs.4,37,962/-. 6. Prayer In view of the above grounds and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant humbly prays that: o the assessment order passed 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

THE ACIT,, ELURU vs. M/S. JEYPOTE SUGAR COMPANY LTD., CHAGALLU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. The Jeypore Sugar Eluru. Company Ltd., D.No. 6/69, Chagallu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aaact 9942 R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 50/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 268/Viz/2015) (Asst. Year : 2010-11) M/S. The Jeypore Sugar Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Company Ltd., D.No. 6/69, Eluru. Chagallu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aaact 9942 R (Applicant) (Respondent)

gains of business or profession. 9. The CIT(A) ought to have sustained the addition made by the AO of Rs 47,04,199/- as the assessee faded to satisfy the conditions laid down in sections 36(1)(v), 40A(7) and 40A(9) of the Act. 10 Without prejudice to the above, the CT(A) ought to have enhanced

DASARI SAI ANNAPURNA L/R OF LATE DASARI GOPI KRISHNA REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dasari Sai Annapurna Vs. Assistant Commissioner L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Of Income Tax, Krishna Reddy, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aeipd0990C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 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 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The 2 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy Vs. Acit

37,07,000/-. As per the information, the assessee had given the land admeasuring 505.5 sq yards at Kanur Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, for development to M/s. CSK Construction, Vijayawada, vide Document No. 3838/2014. As per the information, the assessee would receive 43.33% of total flats (18 flats) – 9 flats admeasuring 6344 Sq. ft, while the developer would receive