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

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

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

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

money found in the possession of Rs. 12,00,000 assessee (ii) Unexplained investment in purchase of Rs. 43,59,500 property at Pendurti (iii) Short Term Capital Gains

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

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 purchase of equity shares. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,68,552 made by the assessing officer by considering some alleged sale proceeds of equity shares as short- term capital gains of the appellant. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining

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

MAHESH KUDARAVALLI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.230/Viz/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mahesh Kudaravalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Bbppk 3773 H Tenali. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 04/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

unexplained money and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 18/12/2019. Thereafter, the Ld. AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre by observing from the reply given by the assessee that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs was received by way of banking channel and the rest

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

unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find from the summary of sworn statements the following shareholders has accepted the share capital investment in the company. TABLE-1 WHETHER WHETHER RETURN STATEM

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, 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

unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find from the summary of sworn statements the following shareholders has accepted the share capital investment in the company. TABLE-1 WHETHER WHETHER RETURN STATEM

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Capital Gains on sale of shares as unexplained. 4 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati 3. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing. Further, the assessee cross-objector has raised an additional ground which reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued

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

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)

capital gains and income from other sources for the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2021-22. In other words, the assessee does not have income from business or profession. If an assessee does not have income from business, the assessee does not require to maintain books of account for computation of income in terms of section 145 or 145A

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

RAMINENI VENKATESWARULU,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARASARAOPET

Bench: Us:

unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.01.2024 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.80,81,995/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. Ostensibly, as the assessee had 4 failed