LAKSHMI PRASUNAMBA KODALI,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX, 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’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 279/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Lakshmi Prasunamba Kodali, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Cxrpk7177G Circle-International Tax, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri S.V. Rao Associates ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

house property at Eluru and (iii) 3 land at Amaravathi. Thus, the Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,18,87,547/- and raised a demand of Rs. 81,51,028/-. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order

ANURADHA VASIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.113/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Anuradha Vasireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 29-26-129, Jadagam Vari Street, Ward-2(2), Suryaraopet, Vijayawada-520002, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acjpv6946M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

house property – Rs.74,222/- and (ii) income from business – Rs. 32,36,153/- and (iii) income from other sources – Rs. 2,71,800/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 23/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

house worth Rs. 25,56,000/- vide Document No. 6224/2015 registered at SRO, Rajanagaram. The source of investment is the advance amount received on the development agreement entered with Bhavya Builders vide Doc. No. 12772/2015 registered at SRO, Rajahmundry by the assessee and her husband. The Ld. AO on verification of the assessee’s return of income observed that

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

house worth Rs. 25,56,000/- vide Document No. 6224/2015 registered at SRO, Rajanagaram. The source of investment is the advance amount received on the development agreement entered with Bhavya Builders vide Doc. No. 12772/2015 registered at SRO, Rajahmundry by the assessee and her husband. The Ld. AO on verification of the assessee’s return of income observed that

VASUDHA SHELTERS,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2023 & 228/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Vasudha Shelters Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.27-23-31, Gopala Reddy Street Income Tax Governorpet Circle-1(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aagfv6727K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

natural justice. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal inlimine since the same is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have held that the income computed with regard to house property

VASUDHA SHELTERS,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2023 & 228/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Vasudha Shelters Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.27-23-31, Gopala Reddy Street Income Tax Governorpet Circle-1(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aagfv6727K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

natural justice. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal inlimine since the same is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have held that the income computed with regard to house property

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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 अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

property as compared to total income’. Thereafter, statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and called for certain information. In response, the assessee submitted that she along with her husband purchased a residential house worth Rs. 25,56,000/- vide Document No. 6224/2015 registered at SRO, Rajanagaram. The source of investment is the advance

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

housing loan interest of Rs. 5,96,817/- and the Ld. AO examined the loan interest certificate submitted by the assessee before the Ld. AO and hence it is not correct to state that proper verification has not been carried on by the AO. 5 I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Sinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist. 5. On the facts

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)

house property amounting to Rs.10,74,945/-and unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,68,20,500/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,78,95,445/- was added to the returned income and the AO passed order dated 20.09.2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1

SATYAVATHI GOLKONDA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Satyavathi Golkonda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mig-102, Old Aphb Colony, Aayakar Bhavan, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 521001. Andhra Pradesh-521001. Pan: Attpg1361J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

property. Therefore, the Ld. AO treated Rs. 7,00,000/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO further added a sum of Rs. 42,050/- disallowing the assessee’s claim of salary income since the assessee assessee has not filed the return of income

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)

house property, income from capital gains and income from other sources for the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2021-22. In other words, the assessee does not have income from business or profession. If an assessee does not have income from business, the assessee does not require to maintain books of account for computation of income in terms

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Natural Justice violated: 8.1 Ld AO-CPC has erred in not following the procedure as prescribed u/s 282(1) read with rule 127(1), where all the notices/Intimations were uploaded in the e-portal, and just presumed that the same was served properly to assessee. It was clearly held in the following case law: [Court Rules in Favour of Fair

MADDI SUDRASHAN RAO,CHILAKAURIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

house property, income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 24/11/2017 declaring total taxable income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify “cash deposits during demonetization period”. Accordingly, notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

house and since it did not materialize, subsequent to announcement of demonetization, the assessee deposited the cash into the bank account. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee while filing his return of income has accepted this fact of depositing Rs. 90 lakhs into the NRO account. However, 3 considering that assessee gave contradictory statements regarding withdrawal of amount from

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

property’. But, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2 lakhs towards interest on housing loan. The Ld. AR further submitted that this was a typographical mistake done by the assessee while entering the data in the return of income and the assessee came to know about this mistake only after receiving the Intimation U/s. 143(1). Therefore, the assessee

UMA MAHESWARA REDDY MAJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.163/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15) Uma Maheswarareddy Majji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52-11-11/1, Resapuvanipalem, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh – 530018. Pan: Alxpm 1484 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ss Sarat Chandra, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 31/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

house for 10 days, hence he was not available to sign the appeal papers that was prepared for filing of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. 2. Immediately after recovery the appeal papers were signed and filed before the Hon’ble ITAT on 23/05/2023 causing a delay of 9 days. 3 …….” 3. From the above contents of the affidavit filed

THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LIMITED,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU

justice.\"\n4. Ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore needs no specification\nadjudication.\n5. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 raised in assessee's appeal pertain to the\ndisallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.\n6. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are that the assessee is a\ncooperative

THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LTD.,,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU

justice.”\n4. Ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore needs no specification\nadjudication.\n5. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 raised in assessee's appeal pertain to the\ndisallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.\n6. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are that the assessee is a\ncooperative

MUTHAVARAPU SRINIVASA BABU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

House property, Partnership income, income from Swarna Gardens (Kalyanamandapam) filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.7,10,226/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,20,000/-. The, Assessment proceedings were completed on 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.14,00,250/-. Subsequently, Pr.CIT, Vijayawada vide