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

Bench: Us:

loss or erosion in the value of a capital asset without any benefit whatsoever to the owner. (emphasis supplied by us) (C). ITO, Ward 1(1), Hyderabad Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd., (2025) ITA No. 58/Hyd/2024, dated 17.04.2025. In the case before the Tribunal, the assessee had given its agricultural land as security and deposited the title deeds

PUPPALA GOPI KRISHNA,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

loss arrived thereon. In response, the assessee furnished the revised computation statement and offered Rs. 2,31,59,000/- as long term capital gains [LTCG] on sale of vacant site. In the computation submitted before the Ld. AO, the assessee offered net LTCG of Rs. 1,04,74,973/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition and the cost

TADIKAMALLA POORNA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRIKAKKULAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer 12-6-36/4/9, Flat No. 408 Palakonda Road – 532001 Andhra Pradesh Mjr Solitaire, Moosapet Balanagar, Sanathnagar Ie -530018 Telangana [Pan: Abbpt5790J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

gains section thereby showing the calculation of short term capital loss of Rs. 13,64,912/- has erroneously shown as negative figure in the gross profit column of the business income as a speculative loss. This mistake can be rectified by giving opportunity to the assessee. We are of the opinion that if at all there is a mistake, after

MDR CRANES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

loss after setting off short-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a claimed loss of Rs. 2,18,03,212/- on the transfer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss of Rs.12,64,794/-]. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during the demonetization period in December, 2016 in the bank account of M/s Jaya Balajee Real Media Private Limited (JBRMPL), a search and seizure action u/sec.132

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss of Rs.12,64,794/-]. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during the demonetization period in December, 2016 in the bank account of M/s Jaya Balajee Real Media Private Limited (JBRMPL), a search and seizure action u/sec.132

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss of Rs.12,64,794/-]. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during the demonetization period in December, 2016 in the bank account of M/s Jaya Balajee Real Media Private Limited (JBRMPL), a search and seizure action u/sec.132

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

loss of Rs.12,64,794/-]. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that, consequent to deposit of Rs.40 Crores in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)/old demonetized notes during the demonetization period in December, 2016 in the bank account of M/s Jaya Balajee Real Media Private Limited (JBRMPL), a search and seizure action u/sec.132

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

set off of brought forward long-term capital loss declared by the appellant in the return of income of AY 2011-12 against the long-term capital gains

MADDIMISETTI SRINIVASU,TANUKU vs. THE ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDARY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

gains on conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade and on sale of plots out of stock-in-trade as business income, as evident from the profit and loss account. The Ld.AO has not examined this issue during the assessment proceedings. Hence, we are of the view, that the Ld.PCIT has rightly set

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated in the return of income. b) The notice issued u/s 148A(b) is void ab initio as the grounds mentioned therein were

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

capital gain at Rs.1,60,917/- 8. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,74,470/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 10. As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved

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

Bench: Us:

gains. Consequently, Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the resultant accretion on transfer to the subsidiary company as income from business of appellant. Further, it was also contended that the said land should not be treated as 'business asset' and thereby the resultant surplus should not be assessed as business income. 5 3.1. As per the profit & loss account

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

gains (STCG) on sale of property: Rs.11,55,505/-; (ii) disallowance of the assessee’s claim of long term capital loss: Rs.47,729/-; and (iii) unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act towards purchase of an immovable property: Rs.33,88,000/-, determined his income at Rs.52,43,830/-. 4 Venkata Prasad Pulipati vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried

BALA VENKATA KATYAYANI DASU,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Bench: Us:

Loss account”, but, the same were separately disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for the subject year. The Ld. AR to buttress his claim that the aforementioned incomes were disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for the subject year, had taken us through the extract of the “return of income” that was placed

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\n(assessee's share) framed the assessment.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide\nhis order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the same.\n5.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in\nappeal before us.\n6.\nWe have

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\n(assessee's share) framed the assessment.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide\nhis order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the same.\n5.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in\nappeal before us.\n6.\nWe have

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

PERFEX TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.477/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) V. Profex Technocrats Private Limited Income Tax Officer –Ward-3(3) 38-44-2/12, Jyothinagar Income Tax Office Marripalem Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh -530018 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Aaccp1426A] Andhra Pradesh - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

loss set off against other than heads of income”. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 27.09.2016. Further, an opportunity of being heard under section 129 was given to the assessee vide letter dated 01.05.2017. In response, assessee has failed to comply with the notice and neither the assessee