THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains of Rs.15,27,00,000/- declared by the assessee u/s 132(4). The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act accepting the income returned and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and accordingly issued show cause notice calling for explanation of the assessee as to why the penalty should

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

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

undisclosed income under Section 69 of the Act. Once the loss is determined, the same should be set off against the income determined under any other head of income. Section 71 permits assessee to set off loss other than that of capital gains

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

KARUTURI VIJAYA BHARATHI, ,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Karuturi Vijaya Bharathi, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), D.No. 1-2-8, Presidency Guntur. Apartment, 1St Floor, 1St Line, Jkc Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Blupk 0068 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and explained the source. Except the statement given by Sri Ganta Punna Rao, no other evidence is available on record to suggest that the assessee paid over and above the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed No. 5751/2010 dated 02/08/2010. When there is a registered sale deed, which clearly shows the sale consideration, prima facie

GRANDHI V.V.S.L.N.SUBBA RAO,,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Capital gains on sale of site as admitted during assessment proceedings 207410 2. Unexplained investment in gold jewellery as in para 4 1758720 3055049 3. Unexplained investment in silver as in para 5 788919 4. Unexplained cash as discussed in para 6 300000 Income assessed 3752059 3752060 3. During the course of search in the residence of the assessee, gold

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

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

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

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

KAKILETI SATYANARAYANA,MANDAPETA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMALAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

capital gains. There is no reference to seized material at all and the addition made by the AO in respect of claim of 54F relating to purchase and sale of shares. The AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee u/sec. 54F not based on any seized material. There is no proximity between the notice issued by the AO u/sec

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

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)

capital gains. The AO observed that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the sale and purchase of the shares with the concerned parties. The AO suspected the genuineness of the purchase and sale transactions due to the reason that the shares were neither purchased nor sold from the market and the transactions were effected directly from the parties

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

BOMMANA RAJKUMAR,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in (i)

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.546-548/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15) Bommana Rajkumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bommana Rajkumar & Co Income Tax Main Road Central Circle Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abkpr3836J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

undisclosed income. therefore, the AO has initiated the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, and issued notice u/s 153C for which the assessee filed the return of income on 31.12.2014, admitting total income of Rs.42,62,970/- including long term capital gains

BOMMANA RAJKUMAR,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in (i)

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.546-548/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15) Bommana Rajkumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bommana Rajkumar & Co Income Tax Main Road Central Circle Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abkpr3836J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

undisclosed income. therefore, the AO has initiated the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, and issued notice u/s 153C for which the assessee filed the return of income on 31.12.2014, admitting total income of Rs.42,62,970/- including long term capital gains

BOMMANA RAJKUMAR,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in (i)

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.546-548/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15) Bommana Rajkumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bommana Rajkumar & Co Income Tax Main Road Central Circle Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Abkpr3836J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

undisclosed income. therefore, the AO has initiated the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, and issued notice u/s 153C for which the assessee filed the return of income on 31.12.2014, admitting total income of Rs.42,62,970/- including long term capital gains

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