GMEDAPADU PACS,EAST GODAVARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Gmedapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 10/02/2021 For Ay 2018-19. The Assessee Society Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Ao On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

assessment and proceeded to disallow the deduction in the computation sheet. There was no reopening of assessment, nor was there

KONA SHANTHI KUMARI,KOMMANAPALLI vs. ASSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 372/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Kona Shanthi Kumari V. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department 2-64/2, Kommanapalli Nfac, Delhi Tuni, Kakinada – 533449 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Dwbpk4623P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reopening of assessment. 3. In any case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing officer amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/- on account of purchase of Immovable Property as undisclosed investments U/s. 69 of the IT Act. The addition 'as made/confirmed is without any basis

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

reopening of the assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12 by rejecting the contentions and objections raised by the appellant and passing of assessment order dated 19th December, 2017 by the AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)- 6, Hyderabad erred

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

reopening of the assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12 by rejecting the contentions and objections raised by the appellant and passing of assessment order dated 19th December, 2017 by the AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)- 6, Hyderabad erred

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

reopening of the assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12 by rejecting the contentions and objections raised by the appellant and passing of assessment order dated 19th December, 2017 by the AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)- 6, Hyderabad erred

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

disallowances of Rs. 49,53,669/- claimed as deduction under\nsection 80P of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO.\n\n7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: -\n\n“1.\nThe reopening of assessment

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowances of Rs. 49,53,669/- claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The reopening of assessment

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Assessment Year :2011-12) Nikhil Constructions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), PAN: AAGFN 7160 A Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 23/01/2023 Pronouncement

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Assessment Year :2011-12) Nikhil Constructions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), PAN: AAGFN 7160 A Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 23/01/2023 Pronouncement

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Assessment Year :2011-12) Nikhil Constructions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), PAN: AAGFN 7160 A Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 23/01/2023 Pronouncement

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Assessment Year :2011-12) Nikhil Constructions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), PAN: AAGFN 7160 A Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 23/01/2023 Pronouncement

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 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, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

disallowance of cost of improvement. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the income of the assessee aggregating to Rs.610.39 lakhs, viz., (i) interest other than interest on securities: Rs.0.62 lakhs; (ii) payments to contractors: Rs.39.29 lakhs; and (iii) sale consideration received on sale

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated in the return of income

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

reopening of the assessment. Ld. AO vide letter dated Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.235/VIZ/2024 Srinivasa Rao Chunduri 07.03.2018 addressed to the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter Ld.AO completed the assessment by adopting the SRO value and also disallowing

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

Assessment Centre is not justified in treating Rs.33,88,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 10. The appellant craves leave to add to; alter; modify; delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3 Venkata

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under