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)

96 sq.yards at Rs.6,72,000/- and the cost of acquisition of the land was worked out to Rs.1,80,200/- inclusive of stamp duty and the indexed cost of acquisition at 480 points and worked out the long term capital gains of Rs.4,91,800/- as under : Market Structure Property Name of the Sl.No. As on date Value

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

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 to carry forward business loss of Rs.1,94,62,300/- only apart from long term capital loss to be carry forward as determined

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

capital\ngains, arising on account of compulsory acquisition, from Income-tax in view\nof section 96 of REFTLAR Act and Section 2(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961.\n3. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have appreciated that as per provisions of\nsection 96 of REFTLAR Act and Section 2(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, the\nland compulsorily

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

capital gains income is chargeable to tax in respect of the said transfer of the land. 6.1 Ld. DR vehemently argued that law does not permit to change the stand which has taken at the initial stage and new claim cannot be entertained without revising the original return of income. Ld. DR in support of his contention also relied upon

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

96,860/- on 28.07.2017. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates requiring the assessee to file the details called for. On verification of the details, it was found that out of 11 flats the assessee sold 5 flats in F.Y. 2016-17 i.e., within the period of three years from the date

MATTAPALLI RAM KUMAR,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1). , RAHAHMURNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.131/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Mattapalli Ram Kumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.8-20-11/1 Income Tax Madireddy Vari Street Circle-1(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Afrpm4855P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, income tax shall not be levied. We are of the firm view that the compensation amount which was received by the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,33,88,000/- should not be suffered for capital gains

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

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

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

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

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

capital gains under the provisions of section 50C of the Act is outside the scope of the limited scrutiny for which the case was selected. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the provisions of section 50C of the Act are not applicable in respect of the property sold by the appellant to Viswanadha Educational Society

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)

96 to 100. After considering the paper book and also the details filed by the assessee in respect of purchase of immovable property as well as the bank statements the Ld. AO came to the conclusion that there is unexplained cash deposit of Rs.35,80,000/- under section 69A of the Act and difference of capital gains

VIJAYRATNA VEERA KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

capital gains with respect to the assessee. The Ld.AO thereafter initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee

SV vs. N CHIKKALA SESHARAO,KAKINADAVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KAKINADA

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

Capital Gain on the compensation received on compulsory\nacquisition of the land. Subsequently, CBDT vide Circular No. 36/2016 dated\n25.10.2016 clarified that the compensation received for compulsory acquisition\nof the land under section 96

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

ANDHRA PAPER LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

96,20,094/- (as against returned income of Rs. 98,10,047/-) directly in the computation sheet annexed with the order. 9.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 98,10,047/- to income chargeable under the head 'Capital Gains' directly in the computation

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

96,87,896/- on the net profits derived from J. Thimmapuram Unit. The\nLd.AO noticed that assessee has included other revenue in the form of duty\ndraw back amounting to Rs. 10,59,37,013/- and sale of licenses amounting to\nRs.28,16,55,312/- aggregating to Rs.38,75,92,325/-. Accordingly, the Ld.AO\nissued show-cause notice proposing

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, 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

96,950/- made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of Establishment fund. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 7 are general in nature, therefore, adjudication is not required on our part, same are dismissed. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee is a cooperative society