VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

b) of the Act requesting explanation for the cash deposits. Considering the assessee’s reply, Ld. AO passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 07.04.2022 considering it as a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16. Thereafter, the case was reopened and notice under section

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

NO 368 KOLAKALURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (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 Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

disallowance of deduction U/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Also, the assessee-society has raised the following additional grounds of appeal: “1. The notice U/s. 148A(b) issued on 21/03/2022 did not provide for clear 7 days of time to the appellant and hence the same

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

B) availed © 2008-09 178,33,11,916 21,15,93,303 85,34,11,142 10,12,58,832 28. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,20,05,735/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO has also made addition on account of loss on sale of fixed assets

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

B) availed © 2008-09 178,33,11,916 21,15,93,303 85,34,11,142 10,12,58,832 28. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,20,05,735/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO has also made addition on account of loss on sale of fixed assets

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

B) availed © 2008-09 178,33,11,916 21,15,93,303 85,34,11,142 10,12,58,832 28. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,20,05,735/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO has also made addition on account of loss on sale of fixed assets

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

B) availed © 2008-09 178,33,11,916 21,15,93,303 85,34,11,142 10,12,58,832 28. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,20,05,735/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO has also made addition on account of loss on sale of fixed assets

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

B) availed © 2008-09 178,33,11,916 21,15,93,303 85,34,11,142 10,12,58,832 28. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,20,05,735/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO has also made addition on account of loss on sale of fixed assets

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. b

NRI ACADEMY OF SICENCES,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.213/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Vs. Nri Academy Of Sciences Income Tax Officer – Exemption 60-3-1/44 Yk Buildings Vijayawada Bus Route No. 5 Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada, Currency Nagar S.O. Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna – 520008, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatn4207C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

149 taxmann.com 456 (Delhi – Trib) iii. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO [1991] 59 taxmann.com 11 (SC). 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] fully supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities and argued that it is not covered under the exemptions prescribed under Rule 6DD of the I.T.Rules and hence CPC has disallowed the same based

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA of Rs.3,84,267/- made vide assessment order passed u/s.147 which is based on time barred notice u/s.148A(b), time barred notice u/s. 148 and invalid order passed u/s.148A(d) as per provisions of section 149(1

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA of Rs.3,84,267/- made vide assessment order passed u/s.147 which is based on time barred notice u/s.148A(b), time barred notice u/s. 148 and invalid order passed u/s.148A(d) as per provisions of section 149(1

SIVADURGAVARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT CIT, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

149(1) of the Act, and thus, the re-assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act is void ab initio. 7. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income, declaring

SIVA DURGA VARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

149(1) of the Act, and thus, the re-assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act is void ab initio. 7. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income, declaring

VENKATA LAKSHMI PADMAVATHI UPPALAPU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA

1. Notice Under Section 148 Served After 1st April 2021-New Law\nApplicable The Income Tax Department issued a notice under Section 148 on 30th\nMarch 2021,but the same was served only after 1st April 2021—acritical date\nwhen the Finance Act, 2021 amended the reassessment procedure. As per law,\nservice of notice is the determining factor for applicability

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS MARY JOSEPH SNEHALAYA,MANGALAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

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

149(1)(b) [new section w.e.f. 01.04.2021] being beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 2. The show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 17.03.2022 is invalid as the same has not given 7 clear days for compliance, consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio. 3. The notice under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LTD.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacn 46664 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Pawan Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

149/- and Duty Draw Back of Rs. 15,46,73,265/-. The assessee’s representative also relied on the judicial pronouncements as detailed in the assessment order. Considering the reply submitted by the assessee, the Ld. AO did not accept the explanations and considered that the export incentives such as Duty Draw Back, Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) cannot