SANNIDHI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY (HUF),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

69,660/- consisting of income from business at Rs. 17,27,016/- and Long-Term Capital Gain income of Rs. 24,833/- and other sources of Rs. 3,62,909/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice under section

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would not apply. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Smt. Shantha Vidya Sagar Annam vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) we hold that handing over of the 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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would not apply. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Smt. Shantha Vidya Sagar Annam vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) we hold that handing over of the 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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would not apply. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Smt. Shantha Vidya Sagar Annam vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) we hold that handing over of the 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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would not apply. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Smt. Shantha Vidya Sagar Annam vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) we hold that handing over of the Page

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and 6 M/s Sai Bhaskar Iron Limited, Guntur gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment, whereas, in the hands of the company, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment, whereas, in the hands of the company, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment, whereas, in the hands of the company, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment, whereas, in the hands of the company, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GANTA SRINIVASA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

Section 48 of the Act, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. CO No.04/Viz/2020 6. The assessee filed cross objections, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of computing the capital gains by allowing

GANTA SRINIVASA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

Section 48 of the Act, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. CO No.04/Viz/2020 6. The assessee filed cross objections, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of computing the capital gains by allowing

GANTA SRINIVASA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Circle-3(1) D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot Visakhapatnam No.231/4, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.04/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Viz/2019 & 424/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Ganta Srinivasa Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-84-16/1/1, Plot No.231/4 Income Tax Mvp Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adypg4435G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021

Section 48 of the Act, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. CO No.04/Viz/2020 6. The assessee filed cross objections, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of computing the capital gains by allowing

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

capital gains” for Rs. 9,69,932/-. On verification of the assessee’s return and the other relevant information filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that during the AY under consideration, the assessee has sold immovable property along with two others. Further, on verification of the sale deeds executed by the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that

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

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

capital gains without giving any deduction towards cost of acquisition. 8. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating Rs.33,88,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69

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

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section 69

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

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section 69

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)

69 of the Act by disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated