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)

forwarded to the Hon'ble President, ITAT u/s 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for referring the same to the 3rd Member to decide the same according to the opinion of majority. The Hon'ble President, ITAT vide order dated 05/03/2025 referred the points of differences to the undersigned Page No. 4 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College

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)

forwarded to the Hon'ble President, ITAT u/s 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for referring the same to the 3rd Member to decide the same according to the opinion of majority. The Hon'ble President, ITAT vide order dated 05/03/2025 referred the points of differences to the undersigned Page No. 4 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College

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

Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that

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

Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

House Property: Rs.1,35,000/-; and (iii) Income from Other Sources: Rs.14,16,609/-. Accordingly, the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, based on the aforesaid intimation dated 11.01.2019, raised a demand of Rs. 6,36,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

Bench: Us:

carried the matter in appeal before us, contending, viz. (i) the liabilities to banks were not of the assessee but of third parties; (ii) the payments directly made by the purchaser should form part of the sale consideration and cannot be reduced as an expenditure; (iii) the assessee had failed to prove the nexus of expenditure with the transfer

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property of Rs. 3,26,665/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny in respect of cash deposits and purchase of immovable property and the Ld. AO has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.12.2022 determining the total income of Rs.73,71,744/- by making addition of Rs.35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

House, upto finishing level. However, in Schedule – I/A appended to the Page No. 8 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy Sale Deed Cum GPA dated 08.08.2006 it is mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

House, upto finishing level. However, in Schedule – I/A appended to the Page No. 8 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy Sale Deed Cum GPA dated 08.08.2006 it is mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

House, upto finishing level. However, in Schedule – I/A appended to the Page No. 8 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy Sale Deed Cum GPA dated 08.08.2006 it is mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.LOURDU REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

House, upto finishing level. However, in Schedule – I/A appended to the Page No. 8 I.T.A. Nos. 325, 326, 327 & 328/VIZ/2018 C.O. Nos. 59, 60 & 61/VIZ/2019 Joji Reddy Yeruva &Y. Lourdu Reddy Sale Deed Cum GPA dated 08.08.2006 it is mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

property. Following the same logic, to deny the benefit of additional depreciation to a generating entity on the basis that electricity is not an “article” or “thing” is in our view an artificially restrictive meaning of the provision. The benefit of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments