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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.314/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nord Anglia Education Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcv2255L (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.205/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Nord Anglia Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcv2255L (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: 1. Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr 2

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 29/12/2016, 27/12/2019 and 20/09/2021. As common issues are involved in the present appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall, as requested by 3 ITA No.314 & 206/Viz/2025 ITA No. 205/Viz/2024 Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI TUMMALA VENKATA SURESH BABU, (HUF), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.293/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-2(3), Sri Tummala Venkata Vijayawada Suresh Babu (Huf) Vijayawada [Pan No.Aacht2890M] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Dr प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y. Surya Chandra Rao, Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

properties and approved plans for construction of residence, valuation report and satisfied regarding the construction of residence and invoked the provisions of section 54F(4) of the act. The A.O’s case is that the assessee has not deposited the balance unutilized amount in capital gains account as required u/s 54F sub section (4) of the Act. Even otherwise

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

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

Bench: Us:

46A (supra), reject the same. The Ground of appeal No. 3.2 is dismissed. 14. On merits, the controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the sum of Rs. 9 crores paid directly by the purchaser of the subject property to, viz. (i). SBI (Rs. 3.50 crores) and (ii). Axis Bank

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

house and since it did not materialize, subsequent to announcement of demonetization, the assessee deposited the cash into the bank account. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee while filing his return of income has accepted this fact of depositing Rs. 90 lakhs into the NRO account. However, 3 considering that assessee gave contradictory statements regarding withdrawal of amount from

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

SATYAVATHI GOLKONDA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Satyavathi Golkonda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mig-102, Old Aphb Colony, Aayakar Bhavan, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 521001. Andhra Pradesh-521001. Pan: Attpg1361J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

house property from Smt. Golkonda Padmaja in the FY 2015-16 for a total consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/- out of which Rs. 29,00,000/- was bank loan and the balance of Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid by cash. The Ld. AO also observed that the assessee is not having any source for the payment

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. YELAMATI MALLIKARJUNA RAO, , KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit (International Taxation), Vs. Yelamati Mallikarjuna Rao, Visakhapatnam. Flat No. 110, Prasanth Towers, R.S. Road, Kurnool Pan No. Ackpr 3669 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS with a reason that ‘high ratio of refund to TDS’. (Yalamati Mallikarjuna Rao) Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued and assessment was completed under section