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

house property”, and\nallowed standard deduction under section 24 of the Act, along with other\npermissible deductions like municipal taxes

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

house property. The assessee claimed standard deduction @ 30%, interest expenses and Municipality taxes total amount of Rs.8,08,17,246/- against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SIVA JYOTHI PALAM, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

house property at Chennai for a consideration of Rs. 6,06,10,000/- and claimed deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. After

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”. He further submitted that the rental income received by the tenant by sub letting a property can be charged to tax under the head “income from other sources” or “profits and gains from business or profession”. The Ld.AR further contended that the assessee has rightly shown rental income from leased property amounting to Rs.6,81,900/- and claimed

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

Bench: Us:

property was not mortgaged by previous owner but by assessee himself, then the amount paid to discharge mortgage debts could not be treated as cost of acquisition so as to allow same as deduction. Accordingly, the PCIT set aside the assessment order on the ground that the order has been passed without making inquiry and verification which should have been

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 which is in occupation of Page No. 3 I.T.A.No.357/VIZ/2024 Tatiparti Satyanarayana the owner of the property for his own residence shall be taken as NIL. He therefore pleaded that the addition made by the CPC, Bangalore be deleted. 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] submitted that the CPC, Bangalore has provided an opportunity

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

deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction

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

deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction

MATAM LATHAMMA,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

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

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.225/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Matam Lathamma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adypl2367A Anakapalle. (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’. But, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2 lakhs towards interest on housing loan. The Ld. AR further

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

property at Bangalore and since the capital gains on the said house sale transaction is exempted under the provisions of section 54, the assessee has not made any TDS. In support of its argument, the Ld AR of the assessee relied on various decisions. However, not convinced with the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

property at Bangalore and since the capital gains on the said house sale transaction is exempted under the provisions of section 54, the assessee has not made any TDS. In support of its argument, the Ld AR of the assessee relied on various decisions. However, not convinced with the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

property at Bangalore and since the capital gains on the said house sale transaction is exempted under the provisions of section 54, the assessee has not made any TDS. In support of its argument, the Ld AR of the assessee relied on various decisions. However, not convinced with the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

property at Bangalore and since the capital gains on the said house sale transaction is exempted under the provisions of section 54, the assessee has not made any TDS. In support of its argument, the Ld AR of the assessee relied on various decisions. However, not convinced with the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee

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)

house property” by denying deduction under Section 80P of the Act, even though, the assessee is entitled to the said

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Properties in pursuance of a Joint Development\nAgreement, in consideration assessee received 4.5 flats representing 45% of the\nconsideration for selling the 55% of the land.. Assessee claimed deduction\nunder section 54 of the Act with respect to the 4.5 flats she acquired in\npursuance to the Joint DevelopmentAgreement. Ld. CIT(A) by relying on\nvarious judicial pronouncements allowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property as commercial property whereas as per the GVMC records it is a residential property”. In response to the show cause notice the assessee submitted that it is not a residential property and used only for commercial purposes. Considering the replies of the assessee, the Ld. AO disallowed the deduction

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

property at USA is a Farm House cannot be accepted. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the assessee owned one more residential house at the time of transfer of original asset, the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduct the TDS on the payment made to the NRI for the purchase of property. In view of the facts of the case even if the appellant is to be held as 'assessee in default' the DCIT vs. Sri Narasimharaju Kanumuri quantum should have been restricted to Rs.56,26,500/- i.e., the payment made to the NRI by the appellant