UPPADA KESAVAJANARDHANA RAO,FLORIDA, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

capital gains of Rs.99,76,950/- and paid taxes thereon of Rs.49,83,790/- including interest of Rs.20,81,160/-. As per the information received by the Assessing Officer from DIT(I&CI) during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to A.Y.2016-17, assessee has sold the property in Survey No.45/Part of Aganampudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam and entered into joint

CHINTAPALLI SUBHAKARA RAO(HUF) ,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-(2)1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.554/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2008-09) Dr.Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (Huf) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Represented By Smt. C.Leela (Kartha) Income Tax D.No.29-10-1, Narasimhanaidu Street Circle-2(1) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aadhc1772N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

58,600/- was paid through cheque No.206956 on Coastal local Area Bank Ltd. on 09.07.2207 from HUF account. The assessee also placed construction agreement in page No. 68 to 74 of the paper book, as per the paper book page No.69, sums of Rs.3,41,400/- vide cheque No.206956 dated 09.07.2007 drawn on Coastal Local Area Bank Ltd., Vijayawada

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)

capital gain as per the DVO and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 15/03/2015 by making addition of Rs. 22,03,295/- and assessed the total income at Rs. 26,58

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 28.12.2016, after making an\naddition of Long-Term Capital Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 28.12.2016, after making an\naddition of Long-Term Capital Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPTNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

58,100/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

58,100/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises

SV vs. N CHIKKALA SESHARAO,KAKINADAVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KAKINADA

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

section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n16.05.2019.\n2.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual filed the\nreturn of income on 05.08.2016 admitting a total income of Rs.63,58,950/-\nfor\nthe A.Y.2016-17.\nAssessee included a sum of Rs.62,97,975/- towards\nLong-Term Capital Gain

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SRI AMRUTLAL JAIN HUNDIA, GUNTUR

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

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains on sale of immovable property. During the year under consideration, the assessee along with three other co-owners sold the property situated at Nahur village, Mumbai and disclosed the toal sale consideration of the property

THE ASST. CIT,, GUNTUR vs. SRI KISHORE KUMAR,, GUNTUR

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

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains on sale of immovable property. During the year under consideration, the assessee along with three other co-owners sold the property situated at Nahur village, Mumbai and disclosed the toal sale consideration of the property

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SRI MADANLAL GHEVARCHAND JAIN,, GUNTUR

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

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains on sale of immovable property. During the year under consideration, the assessee along with three other co-owners sold the property situated at Nahur village, Mumbai and disclosed the toal sale consideration of the property

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee company assailed the impugned addition made by the A.O. on the merits of the case. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations

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

gains are not profits regulated by any statute, but profits in a business computed on business principles. They are business profits and not statutory profits. They are real profits and not notional profits. The real profit of a businessman under s. 10(1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, 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

gains are not profits regulated by any statute, but profits in a business computed on business principles. They are business profits and not statutory profits. They are real profits and not notional profits. The real profit of a businessman under s. 10(1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, 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

gains are not profits regulated by any statute, but profits in a business computed on business principles. They are business profits and not statutory profits. They are real profits and not notional profits. The real profit of a businessman under s. 10(1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate

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

gains are not profits regulated by any statute, but profits in a business computed on business principles. They are business profits and not statutory profits. They are real profits and not notional profits. The real profit of a businessman under s. 10(1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

58-59 Not SATYAVATHI Bankers Accepte Cheque d Share Capital Investm ent 2 POOSARLA NIRMALA 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through Yes Yes Yes 62-63 Not Bankers Accept Cheque ed Share Capital Investm ent 3 POOSARLA VARA I-AXMI 1,80,000 8,10,000 9,90,000 Through

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

58-59 Not SATYAVATHI Bankers Accepte Cheque d Share Capital Investm ent 2 POOSARLA NIRMALA 1,85,000 8,32,500 10,17,500 Through Yes Yes Yes 62-63 Not Bankers Accept Cheque ed Share Capital Investm ent 3 POOSARLA VARA I-AXMI 1,80,000 8,10,000 9,90,000 Through