JIYYANA VENKATRAYUDU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.138/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jiyyana Venkatrayudu, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Kakinada. Income Tax, Pan: Axppj 2351 K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

undisclosed income” the assessee has declared an amount of Rs. 50,59,580/- as income from capital gains. Further, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s Sunbeam Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. On 26.02.2019, search and seizure proceedings were conducted in the case of M/s Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. During the course of the search proceedings, a copy

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

undisclosed income of an assessee has to be computed on the basis of the\nevidences and material found during the search. The statement recorded under\nsection 132(4) of the Act may be used for making additions only to the extent it\nis relating to the incriminating evidencesmaterial found during the search.\nThere must be nexus between statement recorded

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

income under the head capital gain calculated stood undisclosed falling under the meaning of concealment of income. Moreover, the addition

MALLADI PANDURANGA PARAMESWARA RAO,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

undisclosed income from capital gains while passing the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1962 (the Act). Thus

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

undisclosed income of an assessee has to be computed on the basis of the\nevidences and material found during the search. The statement recorded under\nsection 132(4) of the Act may be used for making additions only to the extent it\nis relating to the incriminating evidencesmaterial found during the search.\nThere must be nexus between statement recorded

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

capital gain (STCG) in the hands of the assessee. Lastly, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO, without providing the details of the payments which were alleged to have been received by the assessee during the subject year aggregating to Rs. 5,62,021/-, viz., (i) payments received from M/s. HDB Financial Services

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR vs. YERRA RAJESH, KOTHAPET

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Acit – Central Circle – 1 V. Yerra Rajesh 12-23-3, Kothapet -522001 Central Revenue Building Andhra Pradesh Kannavarithota Guntur – 522001 [Pan: Aagpy3466N] Andhra Pradesh

capital gains by the sellers of the property while filing their individual returns which included the on-money transactions. However, we find that Ld. AO has not brought on record any corroborative evidences against the assessee apart from the Excel Sheet seized from the third party or by relying on the return of income filed by the sellers

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains [LTCG] of Rs. 6,02,448/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS under ‘complete category’ and notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs. 90 lakhs

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

income in response to the notice U/s. 153A against the admitted short term capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed

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

income in response to the notice U/s. 153A against the admitted short term capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed

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

income in response to the notice U/s. 153A against the admitted short term capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed

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

income in response to the notice U/s. 153A against the admitted short term capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed

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

income in response to the notice U/s. 153A against the admitted short term capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed

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

income in response to the notice U/s. 153A against the admitted short term capital gain of Rs. 8,65,521/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 26,80,572/- under the head undisclosed

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

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