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)

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.10.2021 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2 I.T.A. No.126/Viz/2023, A.Y.2019-20 Vijayu Pemmaraju, Visakhapatnam 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, having income from salary, house property and other sources, filed the return of income for the A.Y.2019-20, declaring an income

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

property is Rs. 1,70,31,960/- and since the Chivatam Village is under the Municipal Limits of Tanuku Municipality, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that there is an “income escaping

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)

154 of the Act for the AY 2016-17. Since both these appeals are pertaining to the same assessee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 77 days in each case

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)

154 of the Act for the AY 2016-17. Since both these appeals are pertaining to the same assessee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 77 days in each case

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

rectification & making it zero being Professional income and taxing again an amount to Rs. 14,16,609/- as other sources (though form 26AS shows the same u/s 194J) and the reply of the assessee was not taken into consideration as sec 44ADA though shown in sec 143(1)(a) in the proposed adjustment. Therefore, the same is beyond the scope