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

properties as\nadditional evidence. The certificate stated that appellant has taken Rs\n39 crores from Axis Bank. Appellant has constructed 38,564.72 sq ft at\nOakbridge International school, Bachupally for cost of Rs 28 crores. The\nbalance 56176.72 sq ft will be constructed in AY 19-20. Out of the Rs\n28 crores utilized for construction Rs 19 crores have

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),of the Income – tax Act, 1961- Income from house property- chargeable as (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),of the Income – tax Act, 1961- Income from house property- chargeable as (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

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

Bench: Us:

38 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala per their superior title over the said property had appropriated the sale proceeds to the tune of Rs. 7 crore (supra), therefore, there was no real income accrued to the assessee to the said extent which could be assessed in its hands under Section 48 of the Act. Our aforesaid view that

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

section 263 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT vide para 5.3 of his order directed the Ld. AO to disallow the entire land cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid/credited to NRI and included in the amount of Rs. 50,38,560/- debited to P & L Account this year and also proportionate

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

38,33,331] was not offered by the assessee to tax by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 6,74,80,333/-. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assessee also claimed Rs. 39,39,656/- as deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. However

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

38 relates to estimation disallowances @10% on the\nbogus purchases of Rs.20,49,768/-.\n29. On this issue, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO.\n30. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. AO.\n31. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record.\nIt is the contention

SATYANARAYANA VISWANADHA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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.No.223/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha V. Ito – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpv0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

38,235/-. Further, Ld. AO observed that as there is no claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act in the return, therefore, the same cannot be allowed. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed various submissions, after considering the submissions

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016