SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

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

capital gains. 16. Ostensibly, as per the record to which our attention has been drawn by the Ld. AR., we find that the agricultural land of the assessee, admeasuring 111 sq. meters situated at Gudavalli Mandal, Subbavaram, District: Visakhapatnam, was compulsorily acquired as per - Award No. 8 of 2022, dated 04.02.2022 under Section 3E(1) of the National Highways

T.NAGI REDDY (HUF),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blet. Nagireddy (Huf), Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, D.No. 17-40-23, Visakhapatnam. Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaht 4815 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of agricultural land. Since the claim of the assessee under section 54B was found to be apparently incorrect, notice under section 148 was issued and initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act by determining total income

MATTAPALLI RAM KUMAR,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1). , RAHAHMURNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.131/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Mattapalli Ram Kumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.8-20-11/1 Income Tax Madireddy Vari Street Circle-1(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Afrpm4855P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

capital gains tax. Hence, the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT is erroneous and the Ld.Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the order passed u/s 263 is to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not raised this issue before the Ld.Pr.CIT during the 263 proceedings. He further submits that

GIRIJA DEVI KOMMAREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1). , VISAKHAPATNAM

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.188/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Girija Devi Kommareddy Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.9-29-24/B, Cbm Compound Income Tax Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adfpk3441H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 49(1) explanation of the Act. Hence requested that the Long Term Capital Gains with reference to the land as was computed by the assessee at Rs.44,46

SRI M. KASI VISWESWARA RAO,,VIZIANAGARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.448/Viz/2017 (ननधधारणवषा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Sri M.Kasi Visweswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.6-7-25, Ward-1 Chinna Veedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan :Aachm0158H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.R.Bangari, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018

46,160/-, out of which 1/4th share of the assessee was Rs.19,11,540/- which is brought to tax. 3 Sri M.Kasi Visweswara Rao, Vizianagaram 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT

S.CHINATALLI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. S. Chinatalli, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, 9-16-37/2, Gurujada Enclave, Palakol. Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Agrpc 1150 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and accordingly she filed her return of income, however, the Assessing Officer is not accepted the explanation of the assessee on the ground that she had purchased the land which is in litigation, it is adventure in the nature of trade. Accordingly, he treated the transaction as business transaction and raised a tax demand of Rs. 72,46

CHINTAPALLI SUBHAKARA RAO(HUF) ,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-(2)1, VIJAYAWADA

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.554/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2008-09) Dr.Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (Huf) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Represented By Smt. C.Leela (Kartha) Income Tax D.No.29-10-1, Narasimhanaidu Street Circle-2(1) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aadhc1772N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

46,865.51. Please explain the nature of transaction with sources thereof comparing with the outstanding shown as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.3,26,552/51. A) The sale consideration received by my HUF status vide document No.2299/2007 dt.18.05.2007 have been invested for purchase of a residential flat in SHL Ventures, Hi-tech city, Hyderabad. 5.7. Copy of the document evidencing payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201(1) being immunity clause is applicable to the of made to 'resident' only for the year concerned, whereas in the case the assessee the payments are made to 'non-resident' seller. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that the assessee cannot

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEVI TATIPARTI, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.41/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Smt.Devi Tatiparti Circle-3(1) D.No.10-27-7/19 Visakhapatnam Sri Satya Sai Enclave Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.37/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.41/Viz/2021 Smt.Devi Tatiparti Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.10-27-7/19 Circle-3(1) Sri Satya Sai Enclave Visakhapatnam Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In Ita

capital gains and sale of old car, therefore, contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have remitted the matter back to the file of the AO. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the contention raised by the department. 19. Per contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is vested with the power to direct

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

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 be deleted in full, and the appeal of the Appellant be allowed.” 3 Govindamma Isireddy vs. ITO 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 04/01/2018 declaring an income of Rs.8,34,900/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under section

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

46 of the Bye-Laws of the assessee also provides for making the said payment. (e) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued Guidelines for framing Bye-Laws of a Co-operative society, in which the object behind payment of interest on share capital is explained as under: “Nonetheless, it should be our endeavour to protect our members’ share capital

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

46 of the Bye-Laws of the assessee also provides for making the said payment. (e) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued Guidelines for framing Bye-Laws of a Co-operative society, in which the object behind payment of interest on share capital is explained as under: “Nonetheless, it should be our endeavour to protect our members’ share capital

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

46 of the Bye-Laws of the assessee also provides for making the said payment. (e) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued Guidelines for framing Bye-Laws of a Co-operative society, in which the object behind payment of interest on share capital is explained as under: “Nonetheless, it should be our endeavour to protect our members’ share capital