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)

section 234A; 234B and 234C and the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 3. The above grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or any of the above grounds appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

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 :

79,050/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 1,22,290/-. Subsequently, the A.O., based on information that the assessee alongwith three other co-owners, had entered into a Joint Development Agreement ("JDA") for a total consideration of Rs. 23.94 crores, but had failed to offer the “capital gains” for tax, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice

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

79,750/- after set off of current year's business loss. The brought forward business loss as per the return is Rs.4,96,42,048/- which is more than capital gains determined by the AO. Hence, after allowing the set off of, there will be no income under the head short term capital gains. The appellant will be entitled

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

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 of Rs. 45,000/- claimed exempted qua agricultural income by the Assessee. 3. Against the aforesaid disallowances, the Assessee preferred the first appeal before

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. SRI KALARI VENKATA RASAIAH (HUF), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

capital gain declared by the assessee was ` 78,79,929/- and claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of purchase of residential house property at Visadala village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur district. The property was purchased on 7.7.2000 for consideration of Rs.1.56 crores vide document No.1988/2010. In the assessment proceedings the A.O. caused enquiry by deputing the Inspector

ANKITHAM VENKATA MONISH SAMARENDRA ROW,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains. The Ld.DR submitted that the base rate fixed by the DVO was Rs.25,000/- per sq.yd and went on allowing the deductions / allowances on the base rate for factors, such as location, lease hold right of lessees, impact of legal restrictions, encumbrances, building of hotel, co owners, pollution, availability of buyers, presence of weaker section at the main

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. A.VENKATA MONISH SAMARENDRA ROW, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains. The Ld.DR submitted that the base rate fixed by the DVO was Rs.25,000/- per sq.yd and went on allowing the deductions / allowances on the base rate for factors, such as location, lease hold right of lessees, impact of legal restrictions, encumbrances, building of hotel, co owners, pollution, availability of buyers, presence of weaker section at the main

THE ITO, WARD-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SMT. ANKITHAM INDRANI JAGGA ROW,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 684/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Ankitham Jagga Row Indrani Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O M/S A.V.Bhanoji Row Ward-1(1) G.P.Ramayya & Co., Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 685/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sri A.Venkata Monish Samarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Row Income Tax D.No.10-28-4/31, Flat No.P-2 Circle-1(1) Deepanjali, Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Siripuram, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Acvpa 4899A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.692/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ankitham Jagga Row Ward-1(1) Indrani Visakhapatnam D.No.10-28-4/31P-2 Deepanjali Waltair Uplands, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan :Afvpa3791G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains. The Ld.DR submitted that the base rate fixed by the DVO was Rs.25,000/- per sq.yd and went on allowing the deductions / allowances on the base rate for factors, such as location, lease hold right of lessees, impact of legal restrictions, encumbrances, building of hotel, co owners, pollution, availability of buyers, presence of weaker section at the main

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

79,422 construction Interest 2. Land Development 1,40,575 expenses 3. Disallowance of exemption 2,47,43,894 U/s. 54F Total 2,49,63,891 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made written submissions on 13/12/2018 & 14/12/2018. Considering

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 45(2) of the Act and as to why the exemption claimed u/s 54F should not be disallowed? Since, the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In response there to, the assessee filed a letter stating that he is an agriculturist and not having any residential house, sold the agricultural

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

79,050/- (10,78,11,000-2,31,950) was brought to tax. The AO also rejected the assessee’s claim for proportionate share of expenses incurred, out of the total expenses paid to CMDA towards development and premium FSI charges amounting to Rs.16,72,20,000/-, which was Rs.5,18,95,862/- claimed in the return of income

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

79,050/- (10,78,11,000-2,31,950) was brought to tax. The AO also rejected the assessee’s claim for proportionate share of expenses incurred, out of the total expenses paid to CMDA towards development and premium FSI charges amounting to Rs.16,72,20,000/-, which was Rs.5,18,95,862/- claimed in the return of income

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

79,050/- (10,78,11,000-2,31,950) was brought to tax. The AO also rejected the assessee’s claim for proportionate share of expenses incurred, out of the total expenses paid to CMDA towards development and premium FSI charges amounting to Rs.16,72,20,000/-, which was Rs.5,18,95,862/- claimed in the return of income

GADIRAJU JHANSIRANI,CHINNAMIRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Gadiraju Jhansirani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinnamiram. Ward-2, Pan: Bqjpg8177J Bhimavaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 54F of the Act. In response, the assessee’s Representative filed his objections which are extracted by the Ld. AO in his order at pages 3, 4 & 5 and the crux of the issues raised by the assessee in her objection before the Ld. AO is as under: “i) The amendment made in the Finance Act, 2014 in respect

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

section 69A of the Act: Rs. 28,82,633/-; (ii) addition of unexplained payment of credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

79,229/-. A search u/s 132 was conducted in the group cases of M/s Khan Mohammed Diamonds and Jewellers Private Limited, Guntur and the assessee had admitted the additional income of 3 I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019 and CO No.149/Viz/2019, A.Y.2016-17 M/s Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan, Guntur Rs.15,27,00,000/- in the hands of the firm. The above additional income of Rs.15.27 crores

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

gains are not profits regulated by any statute, but profits in a business computed on business principles. They are business profits and not statutory profits. They are real profits and not notional profits. The real profit of a businessman under s. 10(1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate