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

gains, capital appreciation and benefits of all kinds accruing or arising from or in relation thereto. However, at the time of sharing the Parties shall give due account to the advantages/disadvantages in proportion to their respective shares.” 10.3 Therefore, it is manifest from these clauses of the JDA that the land shall first be developed after obtaining necessary Page

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

gains, capital appreciation and benefits of all kinds accruing or arising from or in relation thereto. However, at the time of sharing the Parties shall give due account to the advantages/disadvantages in proportion to their respective shares.” 10.3 Therefore, it is manifest from these clauses of the JDA that the land shall first be developed after obtaining necessary Page

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

gains, capital appreciation and benefits of all kinds accruing or arising from or in relation thereto. However, at the time of sharing the Parties shall give due account to the advantages/disadvantages in proportion to their respective shares.” 10.3 Therefore, it is manifest from these clauses of the JDA that the land shall first be developed after obtaining necessary Page

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

gains, capital appreciation and benefits of all kinds accruing or arising from or in relation thereto. However, at the time of sharing the Parties shall give due account to the advantages/disadvantages in proportion to their respective shares.” 10.3 Therefore, it is manifest from these clauses of the JDA that the land shall first be developed after obtaining necessary Page

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)

55,000/- and the co-owners have paid the stamp duty on the guideline value without any contest before Stamps and Registration Authorities or in the Court of Law. Therefore, the AO asked the assessee as to why the guide value as per the SRO should not be taken for taxing the capital gains as per section

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)

55,000/- and the co-owners have paid the stamp duty on the guideline value without any contest before Stamps and Registration Authorities or in the Court of Law. Therefore, the AO asked the assessee as to why the guide value as per the SRO should not be taken for taxing the capital gains as per section

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)

55,000/- and the co-owners have paid the stamp duty on the guideline value without any contest before Stamps and Registration Authorities or in the Court of Law. Therefore, the AO asked the assessee as to why the guide value as per the SRO should not be taken for taxing the capital gains as per section

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

55,750/- by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cost of construction in the building. Facts leading to the addition are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,50,340/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(1) and subsequently reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2016. During the course

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

55,750/- by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cost of construction in the building. Facts leading to the addition are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,50,340/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(1) and subsequently reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2016. During the course

R SUHASINI,BHEEMUNIPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (I/C),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Rajulapalli Suhasini, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1, D.No. 12-24-117, Thota Visakhapatnam. Veedhi, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Pan No. Agfpr 7302 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

55,310/-. A survey and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was conducted in the case of Sri Rapeti Govind on 12/09/2007. During the course of search, certain information relating to the sale of property by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 9,43,875/- against the market value

KILIM PYDI REDDY (INDL),,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE ITO,, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

55,114/- on 31.7.2008. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold a property consisting of vacant house site admeasuring 444.44 Sq.yds. 2 Kilim Pydireddy (Indl), Srikakulam with survey No.2 of Maddilapalem and Survey No.7 of Resapuvanipalem vide registered document Nos.3413/07, 3414/07 & 3415/07 dated 30.4.2007 for a total consideration of ` 62,67,000/- and the market value

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. DANDU BRAHMANANDAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.168,83,71,070/- on 27.09.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee was a major stake holder, holding 10.34% of shares in M/s Tirumala Milk Products

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. BATTINI NAGESWARA RAO, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.168,83,71,070/- on 27.09.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee was a major stake holder, holding 10.34% of shares in M/s Tirumala Milk Products

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

section 148A(d) as mandated by the CBDT Guidelines. 7. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating the entire consideration of Rs.11,55,505 as long term capital gains

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

section 148 dated 03/11/2014 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1) is vague and therefore invalid. Consequently, the entire proceedings in pursuance of such an invalid notice are invalid including the assessment order passed. 4. The fair market value adopted by the AO as on 01/054/1981 is not correct instead the Ld. AO ought to have adopted the value

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 23.05.2023. Cross objection is filed by the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in trading in Iron & Steel and filed its return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 14.10.2017 admitting Nil income and claiming current year loss

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SIVA JYOTHI PALAM, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains filed her return of income for the impugned AY 2017-18 on 27/03/2018 admitting a total income of Rs. 16,15,580/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and in response to the notices, the assessee e-filed the information called

ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.424 & 425/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Respectively) Erramilli Gurunadha Sastry Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.50-97-3 Ward-3(2) Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacpe5039M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

55-6-49/2, Survey No.29 Part of Maddilapalem Village, Visakhapatnam to Sri Maradana Gurumurthy, Tatichetla Palem, Visakhapatnam for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- vide registered sale deed bearing No.937/2007 dated 06.02.2007. The market value of the property as per the stamp duty was fixed at Rs.9,34,800/-. Therefore, the AO having found that there was difference