INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

270/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, was issued by the A.O. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee, during the subject year, had sold immovable properties for an aggregate sale consideration

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MURALIKRISHNA VADDI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.494/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Muralikrishna Vaddi Circle 3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan: Awmpv9717D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Chakradhar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 04/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

270(A)… “(2)A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a)the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 143; (b)the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been

SREEDHARALA JOGARAO & SONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270/- for the AY 2016-17. The scrutiny assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Ld.AO on 23/12/2018 wherein the Ld. AO disallowed certain expenses amounting to Rs.10,91,105/- on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, the Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of section

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is allowed in favor of the assessee, the grounds raised by the Revenue does not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 23. IT(SS)A No. 07 & 08/Viz/2025 AYs 2010-11 to 2011-12 (Revenue’s Appeals) 24. In these appeals

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is allowed in favor of the assessee, the grounds raised by the Revenue does not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 23. IT(SS)A No. 07 & 08/Viz/2025 AYs 2010-11 to 2011-12 (Revenue’s Appeals) 24. In these appeals

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is allowed in favor of the assessee, the grounds raised by the Revenue does not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 23. IT(SS)A No. 07 & 08/Viz/2025 AYs 2010-11 to 2011-12 (Revenue’s Appeals) 24. In these appeals

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is allowed in favor of the assessee, the grounds raised by the Revenue does not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 23. IT(SS)A No. 07 & 08/Viz/2025 AYs 2010-11 to 2011-12 (Revenue’s Appeals) 24. In these appeals

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is allowed in favor of the assessee, the grounds raised by the Revenue does not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 23. IT(SS)A No. 07 & 08/Viz/2025 AYs 2010-11 to 2011-12 (Revenue’s Appeals) 24. In these appeals

RATNA KUMARI KOPPISETTY,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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. 411/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratna Kumari Koppisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 3-11-A/3, Recharlapeta Income Tax Office, 11-11-1 3Rd Floor, Sanjivi Hospital Complex Military Colony Ramaraopeta – 533004 Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Asdpk7729B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

270/- besides agricultural income of Rs.45,000/-. The sources of income of the assessee are ‘Income from house property and other sources’. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served