INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3) , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MEENA TANGUDU, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

capital gain arising from the transfer of the\noriginal asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such\nnew asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of\nsub-section (1

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)

capital 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

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

capital gains was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "271(1)(c)", "144B", "194A", "56", "45", "48" ], "issues": "Whether capital

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

45,155/-. The assessee during the course of the survey operations submitted that he has erroneously considered the sale consideration and the cost of acquisition and hence correct long term capital gains could not be admitted in his return of income. He also submitted that the entire investment in the land and buildings was made by him and his daughter

MADDIMISETTI SRINIVASU,TANUKU vs. THE ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDARY

In the result, the 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.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

capital gains in accordance with the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act as well as business income of the assessee on sale of plots with reference to the issue of sale of plots during the period relevant to the A.Y.2017-18. The Ld.PCIT directed the AO to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

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

45-47 Accepted RAO Bankers Share Cheque Capital Investment 2 GOPISETTY 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through Yes Yes Yes 40-44 Accepted SRINIVASA RAO Bankers Share Cheque Capital Investment 3 GOPISEITY SRI 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through Yes Yes Yes 35-39 Accepted DEVI Bankers Share Cheque Capital Investment

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

45-47 Accepted RAO Bankers Share Cheque Capital Investment 2 GOPISETTY 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through Yes Yes Yes 40-44 Accepted SRINIVASA RAO Bankers Share Cheque Capital Investment 3 GOPISEITY SRI 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through Yes Yes Yes 35-39 Accepted DEVI Bankers Share Cheque Capital Investment

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

1), calling for financial details and property-related documents. In response, the assessee submitted that the land was initially purchased to construct a spinning mill but was later sold due to non-materialization of the project and claimed that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the land was situated within

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

Bench: Us:

45,765/-. On a perusal of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 04.07.2022, we find that the aforesaid adjustment was made based on an addition of Rs. 3,00,351/- at Serial Number 23 of “Annexure – Computation of Income from Business or Profession” of the Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. 4. Shri

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

45,34,020/- and the same was registered on 12/12/2013. The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the assessee only entered into an agreement of sale on 10/11/2009 to purchase the property however it was registered in December, 2013 vide sale deed dated 12/12/2013. The Ld. Pr. CIT also observed that the assessee sold the property for Rs.92

MADHU DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited\nscrutiny for the purpose of verifying the \"cash deposits and transaction in\nproperty\" and \"Capital gains / loss on sale of property\". Ld. Assessing\nOfficer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during the course of assessment\nproceedings after examining the information called for, accepted the return of\nincome filed

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:

45% on the initial value of Rs. 1446/- 9 per sq. yd. We therefore direct the Ld. AO to adopt the rate of Rs. 1446/- per sq. yd while computing the sale consideration in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of the Act and compute the capital gains. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 24/03/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 40,45,070/- U/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE

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

45 r.w.s 2(47)(v) of the Act 4 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy vs. ACIT was though statutorily obligated to disclose “capital gains” on te aforesaid transaction during the subject year after taking into consideration the cost of acquisition of land vis-à-vis sale value of 8 flats that were to be received

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verifying the “cash deposits and transaction in property” and “Capital gains / loss on sale of property”. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during the course of assessment proceedings after examining the information called for, accepted the return of income filed

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

section 144B of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2024. Short point for adjudication is, whether the assessee is liable for paying capital consideration. As per the information received by the department, the appellant had entered a Joint Development Agreement with Atha Constructions during the A.Y.2016-17 and as per the agreement, the appellant had received total amount

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

gains of business or profession” wherein the disallowance U/s. 43B has been made becomes irrelevant and as such no consequentialeffect would be given to the disallowed amount on payment basis in the subsequent year. Therefore, the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam was of the opinion that such expenditure having no correlation with the income of the assessee earned during the relevant