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

vi) "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of Section 269-UA. Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever

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

vi) "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of Section 269-UA. Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever

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

vi) "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of Section 269-UA. Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever

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

vi) "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of Section 269-UA. Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever

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)

24 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in appreciating the fact that the entire running business was leased out to the lessee along with movable, immovable properties, students and faculty & other staff and the income being derived is income from business & not income from property. 2. The learned Commissioner

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)

24 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in appreciating the fact that the entire running business was leased out to the lessee along with movable, immovable properties, students and faculty & other staff and the income being derived is income from business & not income from property. 2. The learned Commissioner

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

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

Bench: Us:

vi) CIT Vs. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussain Merchant (2002) 144 Taxmann 720 (Bom). vii) Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs. CIT (1991) 43 ITR 460 (AP). viii) CIT Vs. Jagadish Sugar Mills (1974) Tax LR 526 (All.) ix) CIT Vs. MD Manohar Rao (1985) 155 ITR 696 (AP). x) Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd (1982) 138 ITR 195 (Del). xi) B.N. Pinto

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

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

24,88,980/- for the AY 2017-18 on 29/10/2017. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) dated 14/8/2018 was issued to the assessee through ITBA. Subsequent to change in the incumbent a fresh notice u/s. 129 was issued to the assessee vide letter dated 11/11/2019 and accordingly notice

POOSARLA SUBHASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement

POOSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement

ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PUSARLA SUBASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement

ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PUSARLA SUBASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement

POOSARLA SUBHASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement

POOSARLA SUBHASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement

ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PUSARLA SUBASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

vi) In respect of Madhurawada constructions, he stated that the project is yet to be commenced. In respect of the remaining 7 other projects, the assessee denied having carried out any construction activity and submitted that those 7 projects were not related to him and they were carried out by other persons. In reply to Q.No.38 of the statement