VIVEK INDUSTRIES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 08/09/2021, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has 2 Vivek Industries vs. ITO assailed the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both

KALVA UMADEVI ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHPATNAM

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.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

3 I.T.A. No.443/Viz/2018 Smt.Kalva Uma Devi, Visakhapatnam value as assessed by the Stamps and Registration Authorities as per section 50C of the Act and determined the capital gains and allowed the deduction u/s 54F for an amount of Rs.30,36,735/-. The resultant difference of an amount of Rs.8,80,175/- was to be taxed under long term capital gains

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

3 and half of plot No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 12,600. The ITO computed the capital gains in respect of the said properties at Rs. 68,400. The assessee questioned the computation of capital gains before the AAC and contended that the debts in respect of which mortgage had been executed were discharged by the buyer himself

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

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

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

7. With respect to Grounds No.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the year of taxability of capital gains. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee has entered into a development agreement on 14/3/2016. Consequently, a supplementary agreement was entered into with the Developer by adding additional 209 sq yds on 18/5/2016. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that

R.VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE R. VENKATESWARA RAO,LINGAPALEM MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (Wife & Legal Heir Of Late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Agfpr6873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

7. Being so, in our opinion, the Section 54F is beneficial provision and should be interpreted liberally and the Assessing Officer has to see the end utilization of net sale consideration in the way prescribed in Section 54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled for exemption Under Section 54F of the Act. With this observation, we remit the issue

MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

7 I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2018 Manne Subba Rao, Rajamahendravaram Act for conversion of the capital asset into business asset. Similarly the sale of business assets results into business income. Thus in the instant case, the AO has to assess the short term capital gains as well as the business income. The assessee has sold the land during the year under consideration

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

3 I.T.A. No.322 /Viz/2016 Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada gains account before the due date of furnishing the return of income i.e. 31.07.2010 as required u/s 54F, sub section (4) of the Act, therefore viewed that the sum is chargeable to capital gains in the impugned Assessment year(A.Y). The Ld.AO further observed that the consideration for the purchase

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

7 ITA No.178/Viz/2018, A.Y.2010-11 Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi, Visakhapatnam Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house.64 54F. (1) 65[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the subject year under section 139(1) of the Act. It was observed by him that the assessee had filed his return of income under section 139(8A) of the Act, wherein he had failed to disclose

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)

gains on the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade was realised during the assessment year 2013-14. As per the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act, it becomes taxable in the year of realisation of the stock-in-trade. Assessee also further submitted that, he relied on the CBDT Circular No. 791 dated 02.06.2000 wherein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAJA RAO PARACHURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

3 other co-owners entered into an unregistered JDA with the developer on 25/04/2012. As per addendum to the JDA, the developer was supposed to apply for plan approvals within 1.5 months of receipt of FMB or 90 days from the date of the JDA whichever is later & was supposed to obtain the approval of plans within 16.5 months from

SATYANARAYANA VISWANADHA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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.No.223/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha V. Ito – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpv0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

3 I.T.A.No.223/VIZ/2024 Satyanarayana Viswanadha 3.12.2019 to file his response to the proposed assessment of long-term capital gains and the appellant filed explanation and information claiming deduction u/S.54F, but denied the claim on the ground of absence of claim in the return of income. 4. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered

ROBBI SRINIVASA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PR,. CIT,-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blerobbi Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, D.No. 49-50-7/10, Srinivasa Visakhapatnam. Towers, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adspr 1884 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain on alleged conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade during the year, even if it is nil, is not reported in the relevant schedule of ITR (Schedule-CG of ITR). Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the property was initially acquired as a capital asset is only an afterthought to escape the rigors of section 40A(3

R.MANI KUMAR REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

R.SMITHA SHARMA REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

V.PRATIMA RAO, REPRESENTED BY DR. P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

LALITHA D.V.RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

V.UJAVALA RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee