MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee had converted the capital asset into stock-in-trade on 01.04.2013 and sold the said plots on 23.04.2013, hence, the capital gains required to be calculated as per section 45

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

3,50,00,000/-) is an allowable deduction from the gross sale consideration of Rs. 12,04,45,000/-. As per the provisions of section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the income chargeable under the head “Capital Gains

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

45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such residential house is purchased or constructed. (3

SANNIDHI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY (HUF),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

3. Thereafter, Ld.Pr.CIT issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2024 to show cause why the exemption claimed under section 54B and 54F of the Act could not be denied. In response, assessee vide reply dated 12.03.2024 submitted that the capital gains on the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade was realised during

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

3) Where the new asset is transferred within a period of three years from the date of its purchase or, as the case may be, its construction, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

3) Where the new asset is transferred within a period of three years from\nthe date of its purchase or, as the case may be, its construction, the\namount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not\ncharged under section 45

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

3 I.T.A. No.322 /Viz/2016 Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada gains account before the due date of furnishing the return of income i.e. 31.07.2010 as required u/s 54F, sub section (4) of the Act, therefore viewed that the sum is chargeable to capital gains in the impugned Assessment year(A.Y). The Ld.AO further observed that the consideration for the purchase

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

gain of Rs. 3,50,00,300/- and added to the income of the Assessee . The AO also disallowed deduction of Rs. 92,79,935/- as claimed u/sec. 54B of the Act and to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- claimed exempted qua agricultural income by the Assessee. 3. Against the aforesaid disallowances, the Assessee preferred the first appeal before

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

Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Further, the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the agricultural nature of the land or agricultural activities conducted on it. Hence, Assessing Officer treated the sale consideration of ₹4,00,00,000/- as long-term capital gains. Thereafter, Assessing Officer worked out the capital gain of Rs.3

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]

3) of the Act dated 20.12.2019 is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld.PCIT set aside the assessment to the file of the AO to determine the capital gains in accordance with the provisions of section 45

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

45\n+05'30'\nSr. Private Secretary\nITAT, Visakhapatnam\nPage. No 13\nPage. No 13", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 30.07.2008. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-10 and made an addition of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal

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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— 6 (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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

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)

45,910/- under the head “income from long term capital gains” arising from the sale of immovable property. 3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A), after careful consideration of the facts of the case and the 3 I.T.A. No.78/Viz/2021, A.Y.2011-12 Yadla Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada written submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 45(2) of the Act and as to why the exemption claimed u/s 54F should not be disallowed? Since, the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In response there to, the assessee filed a letter stating that he is an agriculturist and not having any residential house, sold the agricultural

KATRAGADDA MURALIKRISHNA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Katragadda Muralikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.38-37-24, Bhaskar Gardens Ward-4(1) Marripalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Akipk7339L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

45 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s 144 ex-parte, assessing the short term capital gains of Rs.44,71,100/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.AR contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was no passing of consideration as the assessee did not realize

K. SANTHA KUMARI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Katragadda Muralikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.38-37-24, Bhaskar Gardens Ward-4(1) Marripalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Akipk7339L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

45 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s 144 ex-parte, assessing the short term capital gains of Rs.44,71,100/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.AR contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was no passing of consideration as the assessee did not realize

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

45\n+05'30'\nSr. Private Secretary\nITAT, Visakhapatnam\nPage. No 13", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 30.07.2008. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-10, adding Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-. The assessee, believing the tax liability was settled due to a subsequent order