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

151 is not provided to the assessee along with the order under section 148A(d) as mandated by the CBDT Guidelines. 7. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating the entire consideration of Rs.11,55,505 as long term capital gains without giving any deduction towards cost of acquisition. 8. The National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

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

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 society is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.456/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20) No.368 Kolakaluru Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-1, Credit Society Limited, Tenali. Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (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 04/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 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 Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information disseminated in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy (RMS), which revealed that the assessee society had during the subject year made cash deposits/withdrawals aggregating

SEELAMSETTY BALAJI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of indexed cost of improvement.\n3.\nAny other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.\"\n6. Assessee also filed a petition seeking admission of additional ground as\nfollows: -.\n\"The notice dt. 11.03.2024 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as the same\nwas issued by the JAO but not the FAO, in contravention

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 10,54,813/-. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 38. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 raised

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 10,54,813/-. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 38. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 raised

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 10,54,813/-. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 38. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 raised

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 10,54,813/-. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 38. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 raised

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 10,54,813/-. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 38. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 raised

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

disallowed an amount of Rs.1,85,500/- being claim made by the assessee towards interest on borrowed capital and deduction claimed u/s. 80C of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal

BAPULAPADU SRI RAMA HANUMAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY ,BAPULAPADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.157/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bapulapadu Sri Rama Hanuman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Coop. Gudiwada. Society, Bapulapadu. Pan: Aadab3431C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : No Representation ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO arrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income as invalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced herein below for reference: “80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

disallowed. The assessee had not sold any agricultural lands in the subsequent asst. years. In view of the facts mentioned above, I have reason to believe that in this case there is escapement/concealment of income amounting to Rs. 13,26,00,000/- for the Asst. Year 2007-08. As the assessment was completed