LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

unexplained cash credit in the books of account of the assessee which can be considered as addition u/s.68 of the Act. The bank pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee cannot be regarded as the books of account of the assessee. We find that the assessee is an individual and derived income from house property, income from capital

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI MUTCHUAKARLA APPA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No.22/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasad Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

Capital Gains Rs. 99,00,500 (iv) Additional profit Rs. 1,99,510 (v) Unexplained credits in various bank accounts Rs. 54,89,800 Aggrieved by the above additions made by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam. Later the appeal was transferred to the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Guntur. 3. On appeal

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68\nof the Act.\n\n8. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee and its\nfamily members had invested in M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited and\nM/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO found that initially huge share capital\nwas invested by several companies based at Kolkata and Delhi

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

cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands of the company towards advance received from the assessee, which is, evident from re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

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

cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands of the company towards advance received from the assessee, which is, evident from re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

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

cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands of the company towards advance received from the assessee, which is, evident from re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money for the assessment year 2017-2018. In otherwords, for the assessment year 2016-2017, there is no addition in the hands of the company towards advance received from the assessee, which is, evident from re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

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

credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of equity shares: Rs.1,68,552/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee aggrieved with the order

CHIGURUPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, 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.202/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Dr.No.32-41-47/28, Near Library Ward-2(2) Machavaram Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan : Abjpc1799A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T.Act which represent the deposits in the bank account, even though the income was admitted under the provisions of Section 44AD of the I.T.Act since no proper books of accounts are maintained by the assessee. 5 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2023, A.Y.2012-13 Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad., Vijayawada 7. The appellant craves to add to, amend or modify

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68\nof the Act.\n8. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee and its\nfamily members had invested in M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited and\nM/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO found that initially huge share capital\nwas invested by several companies based at Kolkata and Delhi. The shares

SUDHAKARA RAO POTNURU,SRIKAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sudhakara Rao Potnuru Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.13-128, Jogipeta Street Ward-1, Palakonda Road Narasannapeta Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aelpp5479F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gains” at Rs.4,59,182/- and “other Sources” at Rs.8,106/- . The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) and selected for scrutiny to examine the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

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

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)

unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act and Rs.27,81,484/- towards addition on difference in long term capital gains. 3. Subsequently, Ld.Pr.CIT by exercising power conferred under section 263 of the Act, he has noted that on examination of the record, it was noticed that the order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial

GOVINDAMMA ISIREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Govindamma Isireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(4), Pan: Afipi4540L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 27/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Thane, Dated 12/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 28/12/2019 For 2 Govindamma Isireddy Vs. Ito

capital gains be deleted in full, and the appeal of the Appellant be allowed.” 3 Govindamma Isireddy vs. ITO 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 04/01/2018 declaring an income of Rs.8,34,900/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under section

VARA PRASAD DIDLA,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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 119/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vara Prasad Didla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abmpd8306K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 12/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains based on the material available on record and assessed the LTCG at Rs. 5,65,500/-. Further, the Ld. AO also issued notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act and requested the assessee to furnish proof in support of receipt of Rs. 43 lakhs towards sale of property as against registered value of the property

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.4,30,143/- towards interest on housing loan. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPTNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.4,30,143/- towards interest on housing loan. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order