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)

72,000 Cost of acquisition of the land : Rs.1,36,862/- Indexed cost of acquisition : Rs.1,36,862 x 632 / 480 : Rs.1,80,200 Long Term Capital Gains : Rs.4,91,800 5.2.1. Similarly, the AO arrived at the sale consideration of built up area at Rs.27,30,000/- @Rs.600/- per sq.ft. including car parking area for four flats the total

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)

Capital Gains tax liability by the authorities below. If that be so, the Assessee-HUF in the present case, in our opinion, complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under section 54 of the Act for the entire investment in the properties and securities

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. ANDHRA TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain. 7. The learned CIT(A) vide para 7 of his order has raised a doubt regarding assessment of lease rentals under the head business. Inviting our attention to the above said observation of learned CIT(A), learned Authorised Representative submitted that the question of application of section 50 of the Act will not arise if the income

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

72,088/- and 29,10,250/- made u/sec. 54F of the Act by Assessee and finally computed the long term capital gain of Rs. 3,50,00,300/- and added to the income of the Assessee . The AO also disallowed deduction of Rs. 92,79,935/- as claimed u/sec. 54B of the Act and to the tune

CHINTALA RAMBABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

72,000/- was received on the same day and possession was also handed over to the purchaser. Subsequently, (Chintala Rambabu) Shri Vemuri Krishna Murthy sold the property to the third party for Rs. 10,34,000/- on 31/03/2007 vide document No. 2536/2007. The Assessing Officer has noted that market value of the property

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

capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A,69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

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

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 Vs. ITO in ITA No.398/Hyd/2012 dt.12.12.2012 and referred to paras 59 to 65, 70 to 72 and 79 and 80 of the said order. In addition to the above, ld.AR has also submitted that

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

section 96 of REFTLAR Act, 2013. 3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the land in question which was subjected to compulsory acquisition under National Highways Act, 1956 was an agricultural land as per the revenue records and hence the subject transfer is not taxable as per the provisions of income-tax Act.” Smt. Hema Latha

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

72,025/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee further claimed that the said capital gain is exempt u/s 54F on the ground that she has invested the sale proceeds in the construction of a residential house. 2. In order to find out the correctness of the claim made by the assessee u/s 54F, notice u/s 144A

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

72,025/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee further claimed that the said capital gain is exempt u/s 54F on the ground that she has invested the sale proceeds in the construction of a residential house. 2. In order to find out the correctness of the claim made by the assessee u/s 54F, notice u/s 144A

TADIKAMALLA POORNA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRIKAKKULAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer 12-6-36/4/9, Flat No. 408 Palakonda Road – 532001 Andhra Pradesh Mjr Solitaire, Moosapet Balanagar, Sanathnagar Ie -530018 Telangana [Pan: Abbpt5790J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gains section and thereby showing calculation of short term capital loss of Rs. 1364912/- had erroneously shown as negative figure in Page No. 2 I.T.A. No.83/VIZ/2025 Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao the gross profit column of the business income as speculation loss. The appellant has provided with submission copy of consolidated statement issued by Zerodha Stockbroking Services showing net result

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

capital gains is 2/3rd of land area, but not the entire land. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A)has rightly 8 ITA No.417/Viz/2019, CO No.04/Viz/2020 ITA No.423/Viz/2019 and 424/Viz/2019 A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Ganta Srinivasa Rao, Visakhapatnam directed the AO to adopt 2/3rd of 19602 sq.ft instead of 19602 sft. adopting the SRO rate of Rs.5,500 per sq.ft which worked

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

capital gains is 2/3rd of land area, but not the entire land. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A)has rightly 8 ITA No.417/Viz/2019, CO No.04/Viz/2020 ITA No.423/Viz/2019 and 424/Viz/2019 A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Ganta Srinivasa Rao, Visakhapatnam directed the AO to adopt 2/3rd of 19602 sq.ft instead of 19602 sft. adopting the SRO rate of Rs.5,500 per sq.ft which worked

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

capital gains is 2/3rd of land area, but not the entire land. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A)has rightly 8 ITA No.417/Viz/2019, CO No.04/Viz/2020 ITA No.423/Viz/2019 and 424/Viz/2019 A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Ganta Srinivasa Rao, Visakhapatnam directed the AO to adopt 2/3rd of 19602 sq.ft instead of 19602 sft. adopting the SRO rate of Rs.5,500 per sq.ft which worked

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

72,375/- against Shri K.V.V.Prasad. The AO in the penalty order reiterated the observations of the CIT(A) and the assessment order which reads as under : 1. The assessee while entering into an agreement for purchase of land from RK Mittal is fully aware that Shri Mittal is only a decree holder and that the land in question in litigation

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

72,375/- against Shri K.V.V.Prasad. The AO in the penalty order reiterated the observations of the CIT(A) and the assessment order which reads as under : 1. The assessee while entering into an agreement for purchase of land from RK Mittal is fully aware that Shri Mittal is only a decree holder and that the land in question in litigation

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

72,850/-. The return was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act on 14/6/2017. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the following reasons viz., (i) deduction / exemption from capital gains and (ii) investment in immovable property. Thereafter, a notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued electronically. Subsequently, a notice

S.CHINATALLI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. S. Chinatalli, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, 9-16-37/2, Gurujada Enclave, Palakol. Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Agrpc 1150 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and accordingly she filed her return of income, however, the Assessing Officer is not accepted the explanation of the assessee on the ground that she had purchased the land which is in litigation, it is adventure in the nature of trade. Accordingly, he treated the transaction as business transaction and raised a tax demand of Rs. 72