MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

short term capital gains at Rs.19,32,070/-. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the assessee has declared the business loss of 39,79,930/- and filed the return of income beyond the due date but the AO has not considered this aspect in the assessment order. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the due date for filing the return

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

disallowing the cost of indexation and cost of improvement and after considering the investment U/s. 54EC of the Act, computed the taxable income under capital gains at Rs. 5,435/-. The Ld. AO thus completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 19/03/2022 assessing the total income at Rs. 7,80,035/-. 3. Thereafter, by virtue

SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

disallowing the cost of indexation and cost of improvement and after considering the investment U/s. 54EC of the Act, computed the taxable income under capital gains at Rs. 5,435/-. The Ld. AO thus completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 19/03/2022 assessing the total income at Rs. 7,80,035/-. 3. Thereafter, by virtue

UPPADA KESAVAJANARDHANA RAO,FLORIDA, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

disallowance of cost of improvement is hereby confirmed. Therefore, the ground No. 4 ls partly allowed.” 14. Even though, the assessee has raised a specific ground regarding the inclusion of cost of land in the computation of short-term capital gain

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

Bench: Us:

term capital gains by the assessee due to the fact that as per agreement to sale, the assessee is the sole owner of the said property and also the said payment to M/s. Kothapeta Settibalija Ramamandiram Committee for title Clearance is not proved with proper explanation and documentary evidence during the course of assessment proceeding. 4 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

short ‘Act’) on the payments made by him to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed her income tax return for the A.Y.2010-11 on 17.05.2013 admitting sale consideration of Rs.39,69,000/-, towards her share on account of the above transfer of property and claimed exemption u/s 54F for the entire long term capital gains shown at Rs.17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

short, “ld.Commissioner”], Vijayawada u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In this case, the Assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration on dated 17/10/2016, in which (Jasti Sridhar Babu) the long term capital gain

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing assessee’s claim U/s. 54 of the Act and taxing the gain as STCG. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Originally, the assessee has raised 06 grounds of appeal and later revised the grounds of appeal which reads as under: “1. The order passed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI MUTCHUAKARLA APPA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No.22/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasad Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

short term capital gains does not arise and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 99,00,500/-. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and do not wish to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 11. With respect

SANNIDHI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY (HUF),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Term Capital Gain income of Rs. 24,833/- and other sources of Rs. 3,62,909/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 17.03.2021 and in response to the said notice assessee filed return of income on 23.03.2021 admitting the same income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section

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

Capital Gains (“LTCG) on the compulsory acquisition of the subject land which the assessee himself had offered for tax in his return of income. 13. We have heard the authorized representatives for both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record in the context of the issue under consideration. 14. Ostensibly, the assessee

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

short ‘Act’). The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 148, declaring total income of Rs.11,530/-. During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has sold certain properties in nine documents for a consideration of Rs.36,26,500/-, with a market value of Rs.40

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)

disallowance of certain expenses. A Search and Survey action was conducted on a syndicate of persons led by Shri Naresh Jain on 19.03.2019 by DDIT(Inv), Unit-7(1) & 7(3) Mumbai. Shri Naresh Jain and his associates were involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of Long term Capital Gains / Losses in several scrips to various beneficiaries Page

ROBBI SRINIVASA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PR,. CIT,-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blerobbi Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, D.No. 49-50-7/10, Srinivasa Visakhapatnam. Towers, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adspr 1884 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

short term capital gain on alleged conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade during the year, even if it is nil, is not reported in the relevant schedule of ITR (Schedule-CG of ITR). Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the property was initially acquired as a capital asset is only an afterthought to escape the rigors

KORRA BALAJI NAIK,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blekorra Balaji Naik, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), D.No. 37-12-54/2, Ngo’S Visakhapatnam. Colony, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Bpepk 8663 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

short term capital gain but not long term capital loss as the acquired property was in the possession of the assessee for less than 03 years. As regards, development/improvement expenditure claimed at Rs. 17,33,500/- while computing the long term capital loss, the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer in support of the claim

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

shortly thereafter. The completion of construction of the property is further evidenced by the fact that the same was subjected to municipal assessment with effect from 01.04.2013. 5. To recapitulate, the assessee has transferred 10 pieces of vacant land during February and March, 2013 for a total consideration of Rs.60.20 lakhs giving rise to a Capital Gain of Rs.58.72 lakhs

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

shortly thereafter. The completion of construction of the property is further evidenced by the fact that the same was subjected to municipal assessment with effect from 01.04.2013. 5. To recapitulate, the assessee has transferred 10 pieces of vacant land during February and March, 2013 for a total consideration of Rs.60.20 lakhs giving rise to a Capital Gain of Rs.58.72 lakhs

YALAVARTHY PADMA PRIYA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 350/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Yellavarthy Padma Priya V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-6-6/5, Flat No. 401 C.R. Building, M.G. Road Sri Sai Plaza, Basavapunnaiah Street Vijayawada Gunadala Vijayawada – 520005 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adapy6673L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

term capital gains by disallowing the following amounts claimed by the appellant as deduction while computing the capital gains: i. Expenses for transfer: Rs.2,00,000 ii. Cost of improvement (indexed value): Rs.1,36,91,892 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature