DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

property. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by treating the rental income as business income without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed such income as income from house

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

property” by the Ld. AO is valid, as against the claim made by the assessee as “income from business”. Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College 3. In view of the majority opinion, we hold that the addition made by the revenue authorities treating the income as “income from house

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

property” by the Ld. AO is valid, as against the claim made by the assessee as “income from business”. Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College 3. In view of the majority opinion, we hold that the addition made by the revenue authorities treating the income as “income from house

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), , GUNTUR vs. BBM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, Revenue appeal is allowed and the C

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnan.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.185/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Vs. Bbm Estates (P) Ltd Circle 1(1) Guntur Guntur Pan: Aaace2607G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.12/Viz/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1895/Viz/2024) Bbm Estates (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Guntur Circle 1(1) Pan: Aaace2607G Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Satyasai Rath, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order

additions were made to the existing building as per the requirement of M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited. In fact, the company is not doing any business of purchase and selling of the property and letting of the property. The learned AR has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has accepted the rental income as income from house

SITA RAMA RAJU SAGI,BHIMAVARAM vs. ITO WARD 1 BHIMAVARAM, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, Pan: Egapa3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. Hema Latha K, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

income from house property and the details of house properties. Further, vide notice U/s. 142(1) dated 17/08/2022, the Ld. AO also sought the complete address and PAN of the tenants along with copy of the rental agreement and bank statements. The assessee submitted the replies including the documentary evidence were filed before the Ld. AO. Thereafter, she also submitted

NALLAMOTHU VIJAYA LAKSHMI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.164/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nallamothu Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-5-19/11 Ward-2(1) Raja’S Gardens Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acbpn3248C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28 .02.2023

house property”. But in the case on hand, the assessee received rent only by sub letting the property, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has rightly shown the rental income under the head “income from other sources”. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition

SEETHAMRAJU SATYA SURYA VENKATA UMA RANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 512/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Seethamraju Satya Surya Venkata Vs. Income Tax Officer, Uma Rani, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Areps1245A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

house property’. The assessee has also disclosed an amount of Rs. 6,99,940/- as income from other sources. However, the Ld. AO while computing the income of the assessee considered the addition

TATIPARTI SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.357/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tatiparti Satyanarayana V. Ito – Ward – 1(1) D.No. 47-15-10, Shop No. 201A Income Tax Office V.R.C. Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Acgpt5353F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

House Property’. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant admitted only 'Nil' income in respect of self- occupied property and therefore CPC erred in making addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRABHU KISHORE VALLURUPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and\nrevenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

house property\" stating that the assessee has shown\nrental income as Nil in the Profit & Loss Account, inspite of earning rental\nincome from several properties.\n6. Being aggrieved by the above additions

SEEMAKURTI SARADA,RAJAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble

addition. I have also carefully gone through the return of income filed by the assessee for the AY 6 2021-22. On careful perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee, I find that the assessee has admitted (i) Rs. 2,56,485/- under the head ‘income from house property

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

additions in sec 143(1)(a) according to the wrong facts & observations as per the grounds mentioned above. 11. Any other ground that may be add/delete or urged at the time of hearing or before the hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 08.09.2017, declaring an income

VALLURUPALLI PRABHU KISHORE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

house property\" stating that the assessee has shown\nrental income as Nil in the Profit & Loss Account, inspite of earning rental\nincome from several properties.\n6. Being aggrieved by the above additions

THE RUDRAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED H1249,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

additions made by the A.O. towards interest income, dividend income under the head “Income from other sources”, and rental income under the head “Income from house property

AS RAJA SONS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 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’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.379/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Income Tax Office D.No. 10-5-11/5 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Care Hospital, Waltair Main Road Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam - 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4796M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

addition of Rs.3,49,43,660 made by the assessing officer under the head 'Income from House Property' towards: a) re-computation

OAKWOOD THE RAJAHMUNDRY SCHOOL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Oakwood The Rajahmundry Vs. Income Tax Officer, School, Ward-4(2), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabfo 9339 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri P V Madhusudana Rao ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

house property in his return of income filed for the AY 2017-18. However, the Ld. AO without considering this fact and the explanation given by the assessee, made the addition

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

addition u/s.68 of the Act. The bank pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee cannot be regarded as the books of account of the assessee. We find that the assessee is an individual and derived income from house property

SRINIVAS KESINENI,J AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.34/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Srinivas Kesineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of #48-16-11/3B Income Tax Mahanadu Road Circle-2(1) J.Auto Nagar Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Acrpk5878R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

income from house property and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3) , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MEENA TANGUDU, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

income of the assessee at Rs. 2,27,27,940/-.\n3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before\nLd.CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted that portion of the land was\nsold to M/s. Spectrum Properties in pursuance of a Joint Development\nAgreement, in consideration assessee received 4.5 flats representing