SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

exemption u/s 139(4) of the Act even if the property was purchased before the extended due date u/s 139(4) of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee has purchased the new property on 01.12.2010 by availing housing

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 was registered in the name of the assessee but, the date of registration of the property cannot be taken as the criteria to grant exemption

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

exemption u/s 54F. The same approved municipal plan which was submitted now during the present proceedings was also presented earlier to the Bank of Baroda for the purpose of obtaining loan. The assessee has further submitted to the bank an estimate obtained from approved valuer for Rs.50.00 lakhs for the construction of the residential house. The assessee has also intimated

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

exemption u/s 54F. The same approved municipal plan which was submitted now during the present proceedings was also presented earlier to the Bank of Baroda for the purpose of obtaining loan. The assessee has further submitted to the bank an estimate obtained from approved valuer for Rs.50.00 lakhs for the construction of the residential house. The assessee has also intimated

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.314/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nord Anglia Education Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcv2255L (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.205/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Nord Anglia Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcv2255L (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: 1. Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr 2

house property and not business income. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the said addition was made in the absence of requisite information such as copy of sanction letters of local authority and details of plans approved by the local authority, working of income and expenses of these projects and requisite approvals Ground

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)

house in USA after the selling the property in India 7. We have heard the rival contentions and the material available on record. It is not disputed by the Ld.DR before us that the assessee has sold the immovable property within the definition of capital asset in India. It is also undisputed fact that the assessee has claimed exemption

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI TUMMALA VENKATA SURESH BABU, (HUF), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.293/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-2(3), Sri Tummala Venkata Vijayawada Suresh Babu (Huf) Vijayawada [Pan No.Aacht2890M] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Dr प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y. Surya Chandra Rao, Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

house within period of 3 years from the date of sale of the property, hence entitled for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The AO not being

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

properties in nine documents for a consideration of Rs.36,26,500/-, with a market value of Rs.40,01,000/- and claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee, as to why the sale consideration should not be treated as income under the head ‘business ’ as per provisions of section

ACN INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result, the 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.94/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Acn Infotech India Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3A, Balajis Mangalagiri Chambers Income Tax Siripuram Circle-1(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafca7810A]

exempt income and income from house property. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

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 beyond the period of three years. Since the Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is adjudicated against the assessee by denying the benefit of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act as the assessee became ineligible to claim such exemption on the fact that the assessee owns more than one residential house

KALVA UMADEVI ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHPATNAM

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.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

house property, then 6 I.T.A. No.443/Viz/2018 Smt.Kalva Uma Devi, Visakhapatnam he is eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act, even

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)

exempt income and income from house property and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 was issued and served

SMT. T.V. PADMAVATHI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Smt.T.V.Padmavathi Vs. Income Tax Officer 40-15-11, Flat No.3 Ward-2(2) Sudha Apartments Vijayawada Greenland Hotel Road Vijayawada – 520 010 [Pan : Acxpt4644C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property and the capital gains. The AO reworked the interest, taking the net of debit and credit balances which worked out to @Rs.33,94,786/- to be payable to the firm. Finally, the AO held that since, there is no business carried on by the assessee and the assessee being partner of the firm, the interest and the losses

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

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

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

property tax paid by the assessee for Rs. 1,88,965/- and hence these expenses incurred by the assessee 12 shall be allowed while computing the cost of construction. However, with respect to deviation charges, the Ld. AR has submitted in page 53 of the paper book the fine paid of Rs. 31,36,000/- is with respect

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

exemption u/s 54F, since the assessee is having two residential properties and also offered rental income for the relevant assessment year. After issuance of notice and on physical verification of the residential properties, the AO opined that the property is not residential house

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

exemption u/s 54F, since the assessee is having two residential properties and also offered rental income for the relevant assessment year. After issuance of notice and on physical verification of the residential properties, the AO opined that the property is not residential house

VELAGPUDI KRISHNA PRADAD,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blevelagapudi Krishna Prasad, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), D.No. 32-15-110/4, Flat No.404, Vijayawada. 3Rd Floor, Kutumba Enclave, Moghalarajapuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aczpv 6726 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

house is leased out to an educational society, it cannot be said that the property in question is a commercial property, which is not entitled for exemption

CHINTAPALLI SUBHAKARA RAO(HUF) ,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-(2)1, VIJAYAWADA

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.554/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2008-09) Dr.Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (Huf) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Represented By Smt. C.Leela (Kartha) Income Tax D.No.29-10-1, Narasimhanaidu Street Circle-2(1) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aadhc1772N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

house acquired in one of the co- parceners name, from the funds of the HUF is entitled for deduction u/s 54F. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of the Tribunal in the case cited in para No.6 which reads as under : “6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available