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

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 48 r.w.s Page No. 3 I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 Saripalli Vimala Devi 55

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

55:45. 6. Thereafter, the A.O. observed that the assessee company along with the aforementioned Builder/Developer, viz. M/s. Pawan Constructions (supra) had sold the entire property consisting of 967.32 sq. yards and 27,794 sq. ft. of built-up area to five different buyers. On being queried, it was the claim of the assessee company that the 82.28 sq. yards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

55,358/-. In response to notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessee’s representatives filed requisite information called for. Ld.Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during the course of scrutiny proceedings recomputed the Long-Term Capital Gains

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

55,312/-and Duty Draw Back of\nRs.10,59,37,013/- [total Rs.38,75,92,325/-] considering it as not eligible for\ndeduction under section 80IB of the Act as claimed by the assessee and\ntherefore made an addition of Rs.38,75,92,325/- to the total income of the\nassessee.\n3. Aggrieved by the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR vs. YERRA RAJESH, KOTHAPET

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Acit – Central Circle – 1 V. Yerra Rajesh 12-23-3, Kothapet -522001 Central Revenue Building Andhra Pradesh Kannavarithota Guntur – 522001 [Pan: Aagpy3466N] Andhra Pradesh

capital gains on account of sale of land to the assessee considering the entire sale consideration including the on-money payment received from the assessee. Assessee finally vide his letter dated 30.01.2024 objected to the proposed addition stating that he has not paid any additional amount as on-money. Ld. AO by not relying on the assessee’s reply concluded

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

55-17-2 to 4, 4th Floor, Manor, BLVD, LUTZ, FL, Near CGO Complex, Industrial 33549, Foreign, Estate, Autonagar, United States. Vijayawada-520007. PAN: AJVPM 2067 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri GVN Hari, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date

BASWA VENKATA SATYA SAI KUMAR REDDY,ANAPARTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18) Baswa Venkata Satya Sai Kumar Reddy, V. Income Tax Officer, Anaparthi. Ward-1, [Pan: Caipb3816M] Kakinada. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Capital Gains on the sale of land by the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not accept the submissions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

55,560/-. However, it was noticed that assessee failed to e-verify the\nreturn either electronically or physically and hence Ld. AO has not taken\ncognisance to said return of income and therefore concluded that notice under\nsection 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. L.d. AO thereafter proceeded to\nadd an amount of Rs.45

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

55,560/-. However, it was noticed that assessee failed to e-verify the\nreturn either electronically or physically and hence Ld. AO has not taken\ncognisance to said return of income and therefore concluded that notice under\nsection 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. Ld. AO thereafter proceeded to\nadd an amount of Rs.45

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

capital gains at Rs. 1,43,459/-. The Ld. AO is in concord with the assessee’s explanation and completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs.3,55,510/- vide the assessment order dated 20/09/2019. Thereafter, the Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Guntur issued a penalty show 5 cause notice U/s. 274 r.w.s