GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

Long Term Capital Gains” (LTCG) on the subject transfer transaction disclosed by the assessee in his return of income at Rs. 35,72,240/-. The Ld. AR submitted that thereafter the assessee as per the advice of his aforementioned tax consultant filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC wherein he had sought for exemption of the profit/income arising from

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

long-term capital gain at Rs.1,60,917/- 8. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,74,470/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 10. As the appeal filed by the assessee before

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Long Term Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) of Rs. 2,37,03,359/- derived from the year under consideration. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, wherein his total income was determined at Rs. 2,43,33,430/- after allowing set-off of only an amount of Rs. 71,109/- [as against

SURI BABU KROVVIDI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Suri Babu Krovvidi Vs. Income Tax Officer East Godavari Distt. Vijayawada Pan:Aejpk1777P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay To Explain The Cause Of The Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Layman & The Assessee Was Not Having Any Knowledge About The Tax & Procedural Requirement Of Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (A). He Has Further

Long Term Capital Gains from the said transaction is only Rs.4,03,702/- apart from the salary income of Rs.1,17,692/- against which the Assessing Officer has made exaggerated assessment at Rs.1,35,39,000/-. Thus, he has submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer has caused a gross injustice to the assessee and further the learned

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

LATE RAMA KUMARI MUNNA REPRESENTED BY SHRI SHIVAYYA MUNNA HUSBAND LEGAL HEIR,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Long Term Capital Gains” (for short, “LTCG”). 4. The legal heir of the assessee (since deceased) has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dated 26.12.2024 before us. 5. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 6. Shri C. Subrahmanyam

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Long-Term Capital Gains as directed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show-cause notice dated 27.12.2018, 31.05.2021 and 21.06.2021. In response, assessee cited various judicial pronouncements wherein the Ld. AO has failed to mark the proper limb of section

SIRIPURAPU VENKATA RAMANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Siripurapu Venkata Ramana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.37-7-10, Opp.5Th Town Police Ward-2(4) Station, Satyanagar Visakhapatnam Manchukondvari Thota Sivalayam Street Visakhapatnam [Pan : Cptps9594D] (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 : 03.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2 I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2018. A.Y.2009-10 S.Venkata Ramana Rao., Visakhapatnam This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr.CIT]-1, Visakhapatnam vide F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VSP/263/2017-18 dated 29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2009-10. 2. In this case, the assessee is an individual drawing salary from Hindustan

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)

long term 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

VIJAYALAKSHMI DAGGUMALLI,KRISHNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.165/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Vijayalakshmi Daggumalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District, Ward-1(3), Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Cuvpd4504P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan, Am:

long term capital gains. The Ld. AO further also observed that since the assessee did not file her return of income for the AY under consideration and there is income escaping assessment and with the approval of the competent authority, notice U/s. 148 of the Act dated 26/03/2019 was issued and the same was served on the assessee. There

KAVULURU LAKSHMI NARAYANA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-7-10A, Donka Road Ward-2(2) Mogalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aajhk5298R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-2, Guntur In Ita No.372/Gnt/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Dated19.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2014-15 With The Delay Of 36 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Sickness Of 2

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal : In respect of addition of Rs.5,00,000/- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred both in facts and law in sustaining the addition without considering the fact that the family member's agricultural incomes were deposited

KONATHALA RAJENDRA PRASAD,ANAKAPALLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in-limine

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.277/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Konathala Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.14-17-9/1 Ward-1 Rythu Sangam Veedhi Anakapalle Gavarapalem Anakapalle [Pan : Ahupk0522A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

long term capital gains u/s 50C of the Act in respect of an agricultural land sold by appellant. The appellant filed appeal against the assessment order on 01.04.2016. While the appeal was pending, the assessing officer passed an order u/s 154 of the Act on 02.06.2017 for rectifying the mistake in computation of interest u/s 234A

M.RAGHURAMA RAJU L/R OF (LATE) M RADHA MOHAN RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.529/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) M Raghurama Raju Vs Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) M.Radha Mohan Raju Ward-2(2) Flat No.306, Charan Castle Visakhapatnam Sairam Colony Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agxpm9324L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U Mini Chandran, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: Delay: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Representative Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In I.T.A.No.0111/2015-16/Ito,W-2(2),Vsp/2019-20 Dated 14.06.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2007-08 With A Delay Of 3 Days.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. In the instant case, the assessee has filed as many as nine grounds, however pressed ground No.2 which is related to the validity of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on a dead person. Therefore, first we take up the legal ground which reads

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

SINGULURI SAI VENKATA NAGAR SRIVANI,WEST GODAVARI vs. ITO, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Singuluri Sai Venkata Nagar Vs. Income Tax Officer Srivani Ward-2 D.No.2-63/1, Ajjamuru Bhimavaram Near Cheruvu Gattu Akiveedu Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Bmmpa9864K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, sold an immovable property of land admeasuring 629.2 sq.yds for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and made investment in purchase of agricultural land. However, the fair market value of the property as per SRO was Rs.25