KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

section 57(iii) of the Act. The assessee has claimed the interest expenditure of Rs.1,73,16,787/- under the C.O.No. 19/VIZ/2018 (KotuSarat Kumar &Ano.) head ‘income from other sources’ which resulted into loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/- and same was claimed as set off against the income from capital gains

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

section 57(iii) of the Act. The assessee has claimed the interest expenditure of Rs.1,73,16,787/- under the C.O.No. 19/VIZ/2018 (KotuSarat Kumar &Ano.) head ‘income from other sources’ which resulted into loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/- and same was claimed as set off against the income from capital gains

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

57,000/- on 30/01/2012; Sri N.D. Sri Lakshmi sale consideration of Rs. 12,54,074/- on 21/11/2011; and Sri N.R.P. Kumar for sale consideration of Rs. 13,95,776/- on 21/11/2011, total sale consideration of Rs. 84,06,840/- and after deducting cost of acquisition and related expenses, assessee admitted long term capital gain

SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

57,000/- on 30/01/2012; Sri N.D. Sri Lakshmi sale consideration of Rs. 12,54,074/- on 21/11/2011; and Sri N.R.P. Kumar for sale consideration of Rs. 13,95,776/- on 21/11/2011, total sale consideration of Rs. 84,06,840/- and after deducting cost of acquisition and related expenses, assessee admitted long term capital gain

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

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

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

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

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

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

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

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

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

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

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 tax on the consideration of Rs. 56,26,500/- paid by the respondent for purchase of property, the assessing officer is not justified in considering the appellant as an assessee in default. 4. Any other grounds of cross-objection that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 2. Survey proceedings were conducted in the case

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

Bench: Us:

Section 69 of the Act of Rs. 20,57,000/-. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had proposed to sell 82.28 sq. yards (out of 967.32 sq. yards) of the subject land) to M/s. VEC (supra) and had executed a registered sale deed dated 16.04.2010. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

57 ITR 299 ) (SC). Further contention is that substance of the situation to be seen rather than form. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judgment: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v, CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), wherein it was held whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend upon the provisions

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

57 ITR 299 ) (SC). Further contention is that substance of the situation to be seen rather than form. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judgment: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v, CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), wherein it was held whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend upon the provisions

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

57 ITR 299 ) (SC). Further contention is that substance of the situation to be seen rather than form. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judgment: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v, CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), wherein it was held whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend upon the provisions

NYMISH KUNDUM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

57,600/- in the bank account and the source for the same was the sale of immovable property on 19/08/2015 vide Document No. 3631/2015 and 3632/2015. The assessee also paid capital gains on the sale consideration of the said property. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 24/11/2018 and determined the total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

57,000/- by the FAO on account of Short Term Capital Gain without appreciating the fact that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate the claim made by her by providing necessary supporting documentary evidences / material and the assessee in the instant case failed to furnish evidence proving that the assessee under consideration is not a capital

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital as the word “Shall” is used in the above said section and hence the impugned payment is a charge on profit. On the contrary, the view of the department is that the term “Surplus” is defined to mean the net excess of income over expenditure and hence the disposal of surplus signifies only “Appropriation of Profit”. 10. However