YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

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

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act considered the property as 3 transferred during the assessment year 2016-17. The Ld. AO noticing that the assessee has not filed return of income for the AY 2016-17 believed that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served

AS RAJA SONS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.379/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Income Tax Office D.No. 10-5-11/5 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Care Hospital, Waltair Main Road Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam - 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4796M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1 & 3 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 7. Ground No. 2 is with respect to addition of Rs.3,49,43,660/- as income from house property. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that assessee has let out the property to hospital i.e. M/s.Visakha Hospitals & Diagnostics Limited, wherein the major portion of the building aggregating

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

Bench: Us:

43 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala towards payment to illegal occupants. However, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction for payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made to Titco Ltd. 5. The PCIT, therefore issued a show-cause notice on the ground that the Assessing Officer had incorrectly allowed the deduction of payment to Titco Ltd amounting

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

43,894 U/s. 54F Total 2,49,63,891 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made written submissions on 13/12/2018 & 14/12/2018. Considering the assessee’s written submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

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

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. 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued on 23.09.2010 and served on 27.09.2010. In response to the notices, the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed the information called for. After examining and verification of the information furnished by the assessee’s representative, Page No. 3 I.T.A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued on 23.09.2010 and served on 27.09.2010. In response to the notices, the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed the information called for. After examining and verification of the information furnished by the assessee’s representative, Page No. 3 I.T.A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.LOURDU REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued on 23.09.2010 and served on 27.09.2010. In response to the notices, the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed the information called for. After examining and verification of the information furnished by the assessee’s representative, Page No. 3 I.T.A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued on 23.09.2010 and served on 27.09.2010. In response to the notices, the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed the information called for. After examining and verification of the information furnished by the assessee’s representative, Page No. 3 I.T.A

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

43 & 44/VIZ/2025\nDatla Tirupathi Raju\n2.\nITA No.\nITA No. 43/VIZ/2025\nITA No. 44/VIZ/2025\nDIN & Order No.\nITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069762375(1)\nITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070030818(1)\nDATED\n18.10.2024\n29.10.2024\nSince the appeals are belonging to same assessee and grounds raised by\nthe assessees in both the appeals are common and identical, both these appeals\nare clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order being passed

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

43 & 44/VIZ/2025\nDatla Tirupathi Raju\n\nITA No.\nDIN & Order No.\nDATED\nITA No. 43/VIZ/2025\nITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069762375(1)\n18.10.2024\nITA No. 44/VIZ/2025\nITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070030818(1)\n29.10.2024\n2.\nSince the appeals are belonging to same assessee and grounds raised by\nthe assessees in both the appeals are common and identical, both these appeals\nare clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order being

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself