THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

70,22,969/- and while subtracting the indexed cost at Rs. 4,30,515/- made the addition of 3,65,92,453/- . Further allowed the deduction Rs. 15,92,153/- as against the claim of 1,08,72,088/- and 29,10,250/- made u/sec. 54F of the Act by Assessee and finally computed the long term capital gain

SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

70,950/- as on 01.04.1981 and worked out the capital gains. Since the AO did not find favour in the method of computation worked out by the assessee for estimation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981, requested the SRO, Visakhapatnam to provide the market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 . The SRO, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 14.12.2010 furnished

SYED RAHMAN SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

70,950/- as on 01.04.1981 and worked out the capital gains. Since the AO did not find favour in the method of computation worked out by the assessee for estimation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981, requested the SRO, Visakhapatnam to provide the market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 . The SRO, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 14.12.2010 furnished

SYED IBRAHIM SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

70,950/- as on 01.04.1981 and worked out the capital gains. Since the AO did not find favour in the method of computation worked out by the assessee for estimation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981, requested the SRO, Visakhapatnam to provide the market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 . The SRO, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 14.12.2010 furnished

SYED YAKUB SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

70,950/- as on 01.04.1981 and worked out the capital gains. Since the AO did not find favour in the method of computation worked out by the assessee for estimation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981, requested the SRO, Visakhapatnam to provide the market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 . The SRO, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 14.12.2010 furnished

VENKATARAM SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

3, 5 & 7 are dismissed. 4 3.2. The ld.AR submitted that the A.P. Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) is not a municipality within the meaning of law and as per Section 2(47) of the Act. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. T. Urmila

NAGESWARA RAO VISWANADHA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Capital Gains (STCG). The Ld. AO also further observed that the assessee has sold two properties and received his share of sale consideration of Rs. 3,95,70,000/- and after adjusting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 3,95,20,000/-, the assessee offered Rs. 50,000/- towards STCG. 3 The Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has adopted

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

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)

capital gains in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) did not do so. 8. Any other grounds of appeal that emerge out of the appeal proceedings from time to time.” 3. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross Objector on the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s ground of appeal

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

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. DANDU BRAHMANANDAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) gone through the EL and found that the EL was between M/s TMPPL and M/s Barclays which and executed on 05.07.2013. M/s Barclays was engaged to provide financial advice related assistance to clients in connection with the possible transaction

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. BATTINI NAGESWARA RAO, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) gone through the EL and found that the EL was between M/s TMPPL and M/s Barclays which and executed on 05.07.2013. M/s Barclays was engaged to provide financial advice related assistance to clients in connection with the possible transaction

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

70,890/-. From the revised return, the Assessing Officer has found that assessee has declared the income of Rs. 1,26,201/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and had claimed the deduction of Rs.96,48,764/- relating to interest on bank loans and Rs.76,68,023/- towards interest on unsecured loans thereby resulting the loss of Rs.1

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

70,890/-. From the revised return, the Assessing Officer has found that assessee has declared the income of Rs. 1,26,201/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and had claimed the deduction of Rs.96,48,764/- relating to interest on bank loans and Rs.76,68,023/- towards interest on unsecured loans thereby resulting the loss of Rs.1

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, 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

70,890/-. From the revised return, the Assessing Officer has found that assessee has declared the income of Rs. 1,26,201/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and had claimed the deduction of Rs.96,48,764/- relating to interest on bank loans and Rs.76,68,023/- towards interest on unsecured loans thereby resulting the loss of Rs.1

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

3) The appellant has not paid any tax on the admitted long term capital gain from the impugned sale transaction in his HUF capacity even though he derived taxable LTCG from the said transaction even after claiming deductions u/s. 54F of the Act 4) The appellant HUF has filed its return of income only consequent to a survey operation

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

Bench: Us:

70,000/-, as under : 8. The A.O., for computing the sale consideration of the property sold by the assessee company along with the Builder/Developer, adopted the value of the land as per SRO/segment rate i.e. @ 25,000/- per square yard. Accordingly, the A.O. computed the profit/gain on the sale of the subject property developed by the assessee company along with