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

house property”; (ii). sustainability of the CIT(A) view that the\ndisallowance under Section 14A of the Act was liable to be restricted to\nthe extent of the exempt

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

exemption under section 54F of the Act\nfor a single residential unit. She argued that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nconsidering the provisions of the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2015. She therefore\npleaded that the assessee is entitled only for one house to be claimed as\nexemption under section 54F of the Act.\n6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee

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 claimed

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”, and denied the claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society registered under Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and engaged

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

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

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

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

VIJAY PEMMARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOMR TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.126/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Vijay Pemmaraju Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.49-51-1A, Plot No.20 Ward-2(5) Flat No.303, Sankalp Paradise Visakhapatnam Santhipuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aempp5571M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property and other sources, filed the return of income for the A.Y.2019-20, declaring an income of Rs.7,47,129/- after claiming a sum of Rs.9,22,260/- as exempt

WOMEN & CHILD WELFARE CENTRE,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.236/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Women & Child Welfare Centre, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Garividi, Exemption Ward, Vizianagaram. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaatw 0407 H (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Suseel Kumar Agarwal प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 06/04/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

house property and income from other sources respectively, instead of showing them as income referred to in section 11 & 12 derived during the year excluding voluntary contributions. However, the total receipts for the trust for the AY 2017-18 is Rs. 37,99,385/- (including the addition of Rs. 24,22,150/-) and the total payments applied for charitable purposes