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

Bench: Us:

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAJA RAO PARACHURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 30.10.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 13,10,30,550/- after making two additions, viz. (i). Long-term capital gains (on JDA): Rs. 11,26,01,500/-; and (ii) Unexplained cash deposits: Rs. 10,50

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, 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’Ble

50,000/- during 2001 while entering into an agreement with the seller. We are therefore of the considered view that the compensation received 12 by the assessee arises out of the transfer of capital asset in the nature of relinquishment of the specific performance of the contract shall be treated as transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section

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

50,000/-on 26/3/2015. The Ld. Pr. CIT considering the date of registration and the date of sale concluded that this cannot be treated as LTCG and has to be taxed as STCG since the assessee has not held the property for more than three years. Consequently, the claim made by the assessee U/s. 54 of the Act was also

JIYYANA VENKATRAYUDU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

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.138/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jiyyana Venkatrayudu, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Kakinada. Income Tax, Pan: Axppj 2351 K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

50,59,580/- admitted by the appellant for AY 2015-16 towards capital gains in the declaration filed under IDS-2016. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section

NAGESWARA RAO VISWANADHA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

50,000/- as STCG in the return of income. The Revenue has not disputed the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee at Rs. 3,95,20,000/-. The only dispute is with respect to the computation of capital gains by the Ld. AO by adopting the stamp duty value for the purpose of computation of the capital gains

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

50% of the share in the property. Thus, the Ld. AO raised a demand notice U/s. 156 of the Act and also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

50% of the share in the property. Thus, the Ld. AO raised a demand notice U/s. 156 of the Act and also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

50,00,000/- in the case of Potti Kumara Naga Venkata Sai Chakravarthy and Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the case of M/s. Shivani Cotton Industries Private Limited, for the assessment year 2016- 2017. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

50,00,000/- in the case of Potti Kumara Naga Venkata Sai Chakravarthy and Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the case of M/s. Shivani Cotton Industries Private Limited, for the assessment year 2016- 2017. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

50,00,000/- in the case of Potti Kumara Naga Venkata Sai Chakravarthy and Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the case of M/s. Shivani Cotton Industries Private Limited, for the assessment year 2016- 2017. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

50,00,000/- in the case of Potti Kumara Naga Venkata Sai Chakravarthy and Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the case of M/s. Shivani Cotton Industries Private Limited, for the assessment year 2016- 2017. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned

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

50% belongs to her husband. Therefore, she claimed 75% from the husband’s share of repayment of loan, amounting to Rs. 5 Crores as cost of acquisition while computing the capital gains, being her share in the property sold, including inheritance. The Ld. AO considered that the repayment of mortgage loan does not constitute cost of acquisition as per section

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

capital 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

MDR CRANES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gains claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.88,51,721/- as\nper the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Since the loss was computed as per\nthe provisions of the Companies Act, we are of the considered view that it\ncannot be allowed as an expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act\nas per section 50

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

capital gains under section 54F of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates requiring the assessee to file the details Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024 Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu called for. On verification of the details, it was found that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1,23,50

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

capital 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

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)

capital gains as their income and paid the subject taxes on the same, and hence, immunity under the “proviso” to Section 201 was available; and (v) that in any event the TDS provisions under Section 194H, if any, would be relevant for the payments to the resident intermediaries and no obligation was cast under Section

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

50,000/-. The Ld. AO after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority issued a notice U/s. 148 of the Act and called for the assessee to file ITR. The assessee did not respond to the notice. Subsequently, during the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO issued notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act on 8/5/2018 & 21/8/2018