THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. ALAPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C of the Act. The issue before the Assessing Officer for consideration was whether gain in the hands of the assessee by virtue of sale proceeds received by the assessee on account of sale of property dated 12/07/2012 has to be considered as long term capital gain or short term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the (Alapati Rajendra

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

2) of the 7 I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2018 Manne Subba Rao, Rajamahendravaram Act for conversion of the capital asset into business asset. Similarly the sale of business assets results into business income. Thus in the instant case, the AO has to assess the short term capital gains as well as the business income. The assessee has sold the land during the year

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

section 50C(2) & 50C(3) of the Act cannot be applied in the instant case. Therefore, we direct the Ld. AO to adopt the 9 actual sale consideration declared and accepted on the date of agreement entered into by the assessee to compute the capital gains

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:

2(47)(v) of the Act, as above, states that transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property shall be considered as a “transfer” in relation to capital asset. Further, it is undisputed that the built up area of the flat comes into existence only during the year 2011 and possession taken by the assessee during

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:

2(47)(v) of the Act, as above, states that transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property shall be considered as a “transfer” in relation to capital asset. Further, it is undisputed that the built up area of the flat comes into existence only during the year 2011 and possession taken by the assessee during

CHINTALA RAMBABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 50C of the Act. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to tax the capital gains according to law. Hence, I set aside the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee partly.” 8. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the above referred to case

THE ITO, WARD-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SMT. ANKITHAM INDRANI JAGGA ROW,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains as per section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected for adoption of SRO rate, hence, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in order to ascertain the market value of the said property as per the provisions of section 50C(2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. A.VENKATA MONISH SAMARENDRA ROW, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains as per section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected for adoption of SRO rate, hence, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in order to ascertain the market value of the said property as per the provisions of section 50C(2

ANKITHAM VENKATA MONISH SAMARENDRA ROW,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains as per section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected for adoption of SRO rate, hence, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in order to ascertain the market value of the said property as per the provisions of section 50C(2

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)

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) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than

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 and also pre-indexed cost of construction including improvement while computing the Long-Term Capital Gain arising out of the sale of immovable property. Ld. AO thereafter passed a consequential order giving effect to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) and determined the Long-Term Capital Loss at Rs.20,00,615/- vide his consequential order

YENUGULA CHANDRA RAO,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleyenugula Chandra Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Prop : M/S. Rajanu Jewellers, Vijayawada. D.No. 11-49-336B, Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aadpy 5910 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act. In (Yenugula Chandra Rao) view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to tax the capital gains according to law. Hence, I set aside the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee partly. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced

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

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

50C of the Act was applied by the Ld. AO and hence it is only an estimation which does not attract the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has not concealed any income attracting the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He therefore pleaded that

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

capital gains without applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act and thereafter issued a notice U/s. 143(2

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)

capital gains” and the provisions of section 50C of the Act attracts. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 22.11.2016, assessing the income at Rs.54,17,590 and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred

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

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, Smt. Pydi Varahalamma is an individual and filed her return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 11/06/2012 admitting taxable income under the head “capital gains” for Rs. 9,69,932/-. On verification of the assessee’s return and the other relevant information filed by the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI BHUPATHI RAJU RAVI VARMA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.654/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bhupathi Raju Ravi Varma Income Tax D.No.50-1-23, Flat No.103 Circle-3(1) Ksr Complex Visakhapatnam Block A, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aggpb6021L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 50C are not applicable. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the asset (cinema hall) is a business