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

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

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

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

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

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, 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

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

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

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

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)

Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 24/03/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 40,45,070/- U/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE

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

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)

69,000/- towards Long Term 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