SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

capital gains at Rs. 5,435/-. The Ld. AO thus completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 19/03/2022 assessing the total income at Rs. 7,80,035/-. 3. Thereafter, by virtue of the powers vested U/s. 263 of the Act, the Ld. CIT (IT & TP), Hyderabad considered the order of the Ld. AO passed

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

capital gains at Rs. 5,435/-. The Ld. AO thus completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 19/03/2022 assessing the total income at Rs. 7,80,035/-. 3. Thereafter, by virtue of the powers vested U/s. 263 of the Act, the Ld. CIT (IT & TP), Hyderabad considered the order of the Ld. AO passed

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.266/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 115BBE 4. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to; alter; amend; modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 relates

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

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

gains should be deleted.\n4.\nFrom the assessment order, it is observed that the\nassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the\nAct and the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2024. Short point\nfor adjudication is, whether the assessee is liable for paying capital\ngains tax in view of the Joint Development Agreement entered into

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

80,000/- towards unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act and Rs.27,81,484/- towards addition on difference in long term capital gains

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

capital gains and other sources, filed return of\nincome for the A.Y. 2006-07 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited.\n5. M/s. Maa Mahamaya

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

section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 6,74,80

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

gains should be deleted. 4. From the assessment order, it is observed that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2024. Short point for adjudication is, whether the assessee is liable for paying capital consideration. As per the information received by the department, the appellant

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

section 131 of the Act, to all the shareholders to examine the sources of investments and the reasons for payment of high share premium. In response to the summons Ld.AR submitted that eight shareholders have not appeared before the Ld.AO for recording the sworn statement. Out of the balance 21 shareholders, Ld.AR submitted that 6 shareholders have not accepted

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

section 131 of the Act, to all the shareholders to examine the sources of investments and the reasons for payment of high share premium. In response to the summons Ld.AR submitted that eight shareholders have not appeared before the Ld.AO for recording the sworn statement. Out of the balance 21 shareholders, Ld.AR submitted that 6 shareholders have not accepted

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

capital gains and other sources, filed return of\nincome for the A.Y. 2006-07 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee

G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed profit on sale of shares. During the search operations, it was noticed that M/s. Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., has paid an insurance premium of Rs. 8,43,632/- on the life of the employee under the Employer Employee