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

Bench: Us:

90,000 subject to incumbrance in the asst. yr. 1975-76 and for the same assessment year he sold plot Nos. 1, 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

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 :

Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 30.10.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 13,10,30,550/- after making two additions, viz. (i). Long-term capital gains (on JDA): Rs. 11,26,01,500/-; and (ii) Unexplained cash deposits: Rs. 10,50,000/-. 5 DCIT vs. Raja Rao Parachuri 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

section 2(47) of the Act, and hence it is a capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and exigible to tax. Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. 11. With respect to Ground No.3 wherein the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,90

GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

90 lakhs by the Ld. AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR argued that on the issue of computation of capital gains, the assessee has bonafidely relied on the Valuation Certificate provided by the independent valuer and has computed the long term capital gains while filing the return of income. However

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

capital 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

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)

capital gain calculation thereon with supporting documents. 8. Please furnish details of all the bank accounts) held during the year as under: Sr.NO Name Address Account Bank MICR Type of of the of Bank holder(s) Account Code bank Bank name Number account 8. In response to the notice issued by the Ld. AO, assessee filed all the details, paper

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

capital 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\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201(1) being immunity clause is applicable to the of made to 'resident' only for the year concerned, whereas in the case the assessee the payments are made to 'non-resident' seller. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that the assessee cannot

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

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee company assailed the impugned addition made by the A.O. on the merits of the case. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA vs. KANDREGULA PEDDI RAJU, NARSAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.41/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Kandregula Peddi Raju Kakinada Narasapuram [ Pan : Andpr9130L] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 30.03.2022 was passed by the learned Assessing Officer by treating the sale consideration of Rs.57,64,432/- received (after giving indexation on the cost of acquisition) as undisclosed long term capital gains, cash deposits in the two bank accounts totalling to Rs.1,90

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

90 days from 28/2/2022 ie., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

90 days from 28/2/2022 ie., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

90 days from 28/2/2022 ie., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

90 days from 28/2/2022 ie., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

90 days from 28/2/2022 ie., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

90 days from 28/2/2022 ie., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIJAYNAGAR INVESTMENT AND INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.201/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vijaynagar Investment Income Tax & Infra Developers Private Central Circle-1, Limited, Visakhapatnam. Flat No. 403, 4Th Floor, Vijay Jyothi Arcade, Opp. Nhai Office, Hanumanthawaka, Visakhapatnam-530043. Pan: Aadcv 9521 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

90,315/- each aggregating to Rs. 1,87,62,450/-. The Ld. AO found that the assessee has disclosed this amount while filing the return of income. Further, the Ld. 4 AO noticed that the SRO value as per section 50C of the Act for the plot of land is Rs. 56,29,000/- per document and concluded that