ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

50C of the Act, assessee does not have any capital gains and accordingly no tax is payable by the assessee. She further argued that if there is no tax leviable on the assessed income, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

1.—For the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi), "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating

SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

1.—For the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi), "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating

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

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

capital gains based on the value in the registered sale deed and not by adopting the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO has considered that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income while filing the return of income which attracts the penal provisions as per section 271(1

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:

50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO considered the stamp duty value of Rs. 63,89,000/- as the sale consideration and subjected the difference amount of Rs. 49,04,000/- to tax under the head „capital gains‟. The Ld. AO considered this as an escapement of income as per the provisions of section 147 r.w.s

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)

1) was issued to the as the assessee did not admit capital gains reckoning the provisions of section 50C. The assessee

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

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

VIJAYRATNA VEERA KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

1,95,510/-. The Ld. AO observed from the return of income that the assessee computed the capital gains without applying the provisions of section 50C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIJAYNAGAR INVESTMENT AND INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.201/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vijaynagar Investment Income Tax & Infra Developers Private Central Circle-1, Limited, Visakhapatnam. Flat No. 403, 4Th Floor, Vijay Jyothi Arcade, Opp. Nhai Office, Hanumanthawaka, Visakhapatnam-530043. Pan: Aadcv 9521 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

capital gains. Since the assessee did not furnish any agreement, as claimed by the assessee, with respect to the said property, the Ld/ AO added back Rs. 37,53,540/- to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO observed that as per page 66 of the seized

PAVANCHANDRA CHITFUNDS PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Us:

50C of the Act by the A.O at Rs.66,67,806/-. However, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that the A.O., without giving any cogent reason, had declined the specific claims for deduction of certain expenses that were considered by the assessee company while computing the capital gain on the transfer of 967.32 sq. yards

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. 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’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains on the development agreement to be Rs. 54,03,020/-. The Ld. AO also observed that the assessee and her husband have transferred 490.26 sq yds to M/s. Bhavya Builders and the fair market value of the land is at Rs. 18,000/- per sq yd and therefore the value of the land transferred worked

KALPANA TALUKDAR L/R OF (LATE) UTPAL TALUKDAR,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kalpana Talukdar Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Utpal Talukdar Ward-3(5) Lotus Land Mark Vijayawada Plot No.1, Sector-4 Road No.4, Ayodhya Nagar (Po) Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Apppt1112G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 50C of the Act, on which the assessee is liable for payment of capital gain tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1

BOKAM SANYASI NAIDU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

capital gains. Further, the assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 1,14,43,118/- as exempt income. The return of income was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, as per the information available on record, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee along with other three persons sold certain properties for a total

SUBBA RAO ANGIREKULA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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.244/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Subba Rao Angirekula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Autpa2480M Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains U/s. 50C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On appeal, since there was no response from the assessee to the hearing notices issued with regard to the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC passed ex-parte order and dismissed

NARRA GANGA DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 243/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Narra Ganga Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer,] Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Anwpn8051F Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains U/s. 50C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal, since there was no response from the assessee to the hearing notices issued with regard to the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC passed ex-parte order and dismissed

THE ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. JASTI LAKSHMAIAH, TENALI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

Capital Gains [“LTCG”] of the assessee for his 25% share was not admitted by filing the return of income. Thereafter, the proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act was initiated with the prior approval of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“Ld. Pr. CIT”]. Subsequently, the notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee

ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. SMT KOGANTI VIJAYA KUMARI L/H OF LATE KOGANTI BHAVANI SANKAR, GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

Capital Gains [“LTCG”] of the assessee for his 25% share was not admitted by filing the return of income. Thereafter, the proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act was initiated with the prior approval of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“Ld. Pr. CIT”]. Subsequently, the notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. SMT KOGANTI VIJAYA KUMARI L/H OF LATE KOGANTI BHAVANI SANKAR, TENALI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

Capital Gains [“LTCG”] of the assessee for his 25% share was not admitted by filing the return of income. Thereafter, the proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act was initiated with the prior approval of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“Ld. Pr. CIT”]. Subsequently, the notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee