DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195. It is the fact that Shri Sanapala Polinaidu who actually paid that cash to the NRI vendors. Hence the appellant cannot be treated as assessee in default for that payment, when there is no contradictory fact or evidence brought by the AO on record to disprove the submissions of the appellant in consideration of the statements

KALVA UMADEVI ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

house property, then 6 I.T.A. No.443/Viz/2018 Smt.Kalva Uma Devi, Visakhapatnam he is eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act, even though the full value of consideration is more than the net sale consideration as a result of transfer. Deeming fiction as provided u/s 50C of the Act in respect of the words full value of consideration

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

195/- during the period from 01.04.2008 to 22.03.2009 that is subsequent to the sale of the plots and the construction was completed by 31.03.2009. Thus, it is submitted that though the construction of house was commenced prior to the transfer of the asset, the construction was completed within 3 years from the sale of the land, therefore, argued that

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

Bench: Us:

195 (Del). xi) B.N. Pinto Vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 306 (Kar). xii) CIT Vs. C.V. Soundararajan (1984) 150 ITR 80 (Mad). xiii) CIT Vs. Abrar Ali (2001) 247 ITR 312 (Bom). xiv) Mala Kumar Vs. Asst. CIT (2020) Tax Pub (DT) 2107 (Delhi-Trib.) xv) CIT Vs. Eagle Theaters (2021) 205 Taxmann 449 (Del). xvi) Devendra Kumar Shroff, Kolkata

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

section 195 (Non-business ITR)”. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. Due to change in the incumbency, a notice U/s. 129 of the Act was also issued on 16/09/2021 along with notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted the information as called for. On perusal and verification / examining the submissions made

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR vs. NSL TEXTILES LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

property in India or control or management vested in India. Unless these conditions were satisfied, it cannot be held that income has accrued or arisen in India. This Tribunal further held that section195 has to be read along with charging sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. The provisions contained u/s 195 were not meant that the moment there

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR vs. NSL TEXTILES LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

property in India or control or management vested in India. Unless these conditions were satisfied, it cannot be held that income has accrued or arisen in India. This Tribunal further held that section195 has to be read along with charging sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. The provisions contained u/s 195 were not meant that the moment there

PREMJI JIVARAJ PATEL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Premji Jivraj Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.24-84-1/1 Ward-5(3) Kanthi Road Visakhapatnam Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaopp1330Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22 .11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

195 sq.yds of Madras terraced room with plinth area of 100 sft bearing D.No.32- 37-20 in sy.No.129 part, Block No.4, Plot No.21 & 22, Market ward within Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- vide document No.4937/2006 dated 16.10.2006 and the market value of which was Rs.13,29,500/- as per SRO, Visakhapatnam

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 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal