GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

investment in the land and buildings was made by him and his daughter’s name was included for the name sake which was also confirmed by his daughter at the time of survey proceedings. The Ld. AO observed that the income chargeable to tax has escaped income and the case was reopened U/s. 148 of the Act by issuing

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

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 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is implied that

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

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 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is implied that

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

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

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 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is implied that

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

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 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is implied that

PAVANCHANDRA CHITFUNDS PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Us:

unexplained investment of Rs. 20.57 lacs (supra) for getting the subject land transferred back in its name. 14. Per contra, Dr. Aparna Villuri, learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 12 Pavanchandra Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd. 15. The Ld. DR submitted that no infirmity did emanate from the order

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

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

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

Unexplained investment in purchase of Rs. 43,59,500 property at Pendurti (iii) Short Term Capital Gains Rs. 99,00,500 (iv) Additional

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

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

unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of equity

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

capital gains without giving any deduction towards cost of acquisition. 8. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating Rs.33,88,000/- as unexplained investment

NANNAPANENI SAILAJA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment in property.\n3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal\nhearing.\"\n7. Ground Nos. 1 & 3 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.\n8. Ground No.2 is related to sustaining the addition of Rs.9,15,850/- by the\nLd.CIT(A) towards investment in property. On this issue, Ld. Authorised\nRepresentative [hereinafter “Ld.AR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) did not do so. 8. Any other grounds of appeal that emerge out of the appeal proceedings from time to time.” 3. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross Objector on the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s ground of appeal

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. AASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

investment of Rs. 25 lakhs in the affidavit was made for enabling the sanction of loan by banks to the related parties where the assessee stood as a guarantor. The Ld. AR submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the affidavit was made only for the bank purposes and solely for taking the loan by the company

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

investment of Rs. 25 lakhs in the affidavit was made for enabling the sanction of loan by banks to the related parties where the assessee stood as a guarantor. The Ld. AR submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the affidavit was made only for the bank purposes and solely for taking the loan by the company

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

unexplained investment in the property as well as deposits in the bank account of the assessee along with undisclosed income from capital gains

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