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

15,42,448/- (calculated as 1% of the value of\ninvestments in subsidiaries amounting to Rs.15,42,44,890) in\naccordance with rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the\n"Rules") read with section 14A of the Act. Appellant submitted that to\ninvoke section 14A and rule 8D, AO must record lack of satisfaction\nabout

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 28(i).0f the Income Tax Act, 1961- Income from house property-chargeable us (Business income v. Property Income) Assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 - High Court by impugned order held that where assessee was not engaged in any business activity, rental income earned from letting out commercial complex would be assessed as income

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 28(i).0f the Income Tax Act, 1961- Income from house property-chargeable us (Business income v. Property Income) Assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 - High Court by impugned order held that where assessee was not engaged in any business activity, rental income earned from letting out commercial complex would be assessed as income

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

10. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue is to the effect that the rent should be the main source of income or the purpose for which the company is incorporated should be to earn income from rent, so as to Page 13 of 17 ITA No 185 of 2024 and CO 12 of 2024 BBM Estates

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

15,580/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and in response to the notices, the assessee e-filed the information called for. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee 4 sold vacant land at Gollapudi, Vijayawada for a consideration

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

15 days from the date of obtaining sanctioned plan. Therefore, contrary to the sanction of plan, the entering into JDA does not constitute any transfer of the immovable property when the agreement itself was dependent upon sanction of the plan as well as signing of a supplementary agreement between the parties. He has then referred to clause

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

15 days from the date of obtaining sanctioned plan. Therefore, contrary to the sanction of plan, the entering into JDA does not constitute any transfer of the immovable property when the agreement itself was dependent upon sanction of the plan as well as signing of a supplementary agreement between the parties. He has then referred to clause

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

15 days from the date of obtaining sanctioned plan. Therefore, contrary to the sanction of plan, the entering into JDA does not constitute any transfer of the immovable property when the agreement itself was dependent upon sanction of the plan as well as signing of a supplementary agreement between the parties. He has then referred to clause

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

15 days from the date of obtaining sanctioned plan. Therefore, contrary to the sanction of plan, the entering into JDA does not constitute any transfer of the immovable property when the agreement itself was dependent upon sanction of the plan as well as signing of a supplementary agreement between the parties. He has then referred to clause

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

Bench: Us:

15,05,000/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- and out of the same, deducted expenses incurred in connection with the transfer, a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- being payment made to various illegal occupants

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)

15,750/-. While filing the return of income assessee declared one property as Self-occupied and other two properties as let out and has accordingly declared rental income received by the assessee. However, it was noticed that assessee has wrongly filled up notional value of rent with respect of self-occupied property but has declared net Nil income with respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

House\nMain Road, Lakshmipuram\nGuntur - 522007\nAndhra Pradesh\n[PAN:AAACV7767L]\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\nDCIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1\nIncome Tax Office\nCentral Revenue Buildings\nNear Collector Office\nMahathma Gandhi Road\nVijayawada - 522002\nAndhra Pradesh\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nकरदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented by\n: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate\nराजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented by\n: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

property is indicated or in case where notice U/s. 10(1) & 10(3) of UL (C&R) Act, 1976 have been issued by the Government. Mere declaration of land surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act, 1976 does not deprive the land lords from his rights, title and interest in the excess vacant land. Those will not be extinguished till

SATYANARAYANA KODURU,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

property of Rs.59,84,000/-; (ii) addition under section 69 of the Act in respect of the registration charges and stamp duty of Rs.4,48,700/-; (iii) addition under section 69A of the Act of unexplained cash deposits in bank account: Rs.32,30,000/-; (iv) addition of undisclosed salary received from NHAI: Rs.17,62,155/-; (v) 4 Satyanarayana Koduru

NANNAPANENI SAILAJA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house wife and left with two unmarried\ndaughters. The sudden death of the husband left the family in a shock. The\nappellant did not have any idea of the income tax proceedings. She does\nnot know the details of the email and other login details of her account in\nthe income tax portal. As such, she was not aware

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

housing loans. We are therefore of the considered view that assessee has properly explained the sources of cash with respect to the withdrawals made by the assessee during July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence we consider amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to allow amount

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

housing loans. We are therefore of the considered view that assessee has properly explained the sources of cash with respect to the withdrawals made by the assessee during July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence we consider amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to allow amount

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

house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession