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

gains. The appellant will be entitled to carry forward business loss of Rs.1,94,62,300/- only apart from long term capital loss to be carry forward as determined by the AO. The AO is directed to modify the order accordingly. The grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are allowed.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) also relied upon

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

94,160/-. The Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee had sold a house site admeasuring 1941.51 sq.yds. for a consideration of Rs. 1.90 crores as against SRO value of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- and as per the provisions of section 50C, the sale consideration of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- as deemed consideration. The Assessing Officer, thus, noted that

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

gains as capital receipt. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. AO be upheld. The Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 86 Taxmann.com 94 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar [2012] 20 taxmann.com 430 (Karnataka) (iii) Decision of the ITAT, Delhi “F” Bench in the case

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

94,462/- u/s 45 of the Act and added to the total income. Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.3,86,05,538/- and passed assessment order on 29.03.2022. 3 3. Before us, ld.AR has drawn our attention to para 6 of the assessment order, which

SMT. T.V. PADMAVATHI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Smt.T.V.Padmavathi Vs. Income Tax Officer 40-15-11, Flat No.3 Ward-2(2) Sudha Apartments Vijayawada Greenland Hotel Road Vijayawada – 520 010 [Pan : Acxpt4644C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

7 I.T.A. No.351 /Viz/2016 Smt. T.V.Padmavathi, Vijayawada indexed cost of acquisition and the expenses incurred for the purpose of transfer of the property or for the improvement of the property as per section 48 of the act. No other deductions are allowed while computing the capital gains. Interest if any on the borrowed funds for construction of the house

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

7. On the other hand, the Ld.AR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case the issue on which the addition was made is a debatable issue and two divergent views are possible according to the assessee. With regard the taxability of income

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

7. On the other hand, the Ld.AR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case the issue on which the addition was made is a debatable issue and two divergent views are possible according to the assessee. With regard the taxability of income

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)

section 56(2)(x) of the Act and also the sources of purchase of the immovable property to the tune of Rs. 28,60,000/- and directed the Ld. AO to examine properly. 6. On being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order passed Us. by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner

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)

7. The CIT(A), after perusing the submissions of the assessee, called for a “remand report” from the A.O. In reply, the A.O., in his remand report, relied on the documents that were impounded DCIT vs. Sri Narasimharaju Kanumuri during the course of the survey proceedings and the sworn statements recorded by the Investigation Wing. The AO submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Capital Gain of Rs.1,94,13,599/- which is disclosed in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In support of the above submissions, assessee filed relevant evidence in support Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy of the funds mobilised for investment in the Company Steel Exchange

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

94,377/-. 6. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “5.1.3 I have carefully considered the submissions. I find that identical issue with same set of facts was considered in the case of The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09 wherein it was held by the undersigned

M/S. THE JAMPETA CO- OP URBAN BANK LTD,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE JOIT CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

94,377/-. 6. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “5.1.3 I have carefully considered the submissions. I find that identical issue with same set of facts was considered in the case of The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09 wherein it was held by the undersigned

KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR

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.608/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Kilari Venkata Rosaiah Vs Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.25-16-180 Income Tax G.T.Road, Amc Yard Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adspk7598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020

section 147, the AO is permitted to make the addition on any other issue which comes to the notice of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, argued that the AO rightly made the addition with regard to long term capital gains, hence, requested to uphold the order of the AO. The Ld.DR relied on the decision

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

Bench: Us:

capital gain of Rs.13.26 crores (supra) disclosed by the assessee company on sale of the subject agricultural 9 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited land and was accepted in the course of the original assessment, inter alia, on two grounds viz., (i). that the reopening of the reassessment by the successor A.O. based on a “change of opinion

MS USHA TUBUS & PIPES PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.48/Viz/2015 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2004-2005) M/S Usha Tubes & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.11-8-34 Income Tax Daspalla Hills Cicle-5(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacu4259N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

94,300 09.03.2004 Develop Ment Co.Ltd. Total Loss 70,61,600 3 I.T.A. No.48/Viz/2015 M/s Usha Tubes & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam 3. Initially, the AO asked the assessee as to why the loss should not be treated as speculation loss u/s 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’). The assessee filed objection for treating

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

gain of Rs. 11,24,33,853/- which has a direct nexus with the period of realization of the receivables from the AE should be netted off against the notional interest charged on delayed receipt of trade receivables. 2.13. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the DRP/TPO/AO erred in considering uniform credit period of 60 days without any basis

KONCHADA RAMESH BABU,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bles.A. No. 09 & 10/Viz/2019 & Ita Nos. 123 & 124/Viz/2019 (Asst. Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Konchada Ramesh Babu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, D.No. 10-1-15, Prop. Srikakulam. Koteswara Steel Centre, 7 Road Junction, Gudi Veedhi, Srikakulam. Pan No. Aeppk 6505 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

94,970/-. Subsequently, a survey operation was conducted under section 133A of the Act on 19/09/2014. During the course of survey proceedings, it is found that there are certain discrepancies in respect of sundry creditors as well as cash payment made in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the same in the survey proceedings

KONCHADA RAMESH BABU,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bles.A. No. 09 & 10/Viz/2019 & Ita Nos. 123 & 124/Viz/2019 (Asst. Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Konchada Ramesh Babu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, D.No. 10-1-15, Prop. Srikakulam. Koteswara Steel Centre, 7 Road Junction, Gudi Veedhi, Srikakulam. Pan No. Aeppk 6505 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

94,970/-. Subsequently, a survey operation was conducted under section 133A of the Act on 19/09/2014. During the course of survey proceedings, it is found that there are certain discrepancies in respect of sundry creditors as well as cash payment made in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the same in the survey proceedings