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

Bench: Us:

48 for computing the capital gains on the sale of the property in the hands of the assessee. We may further observe that in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble High Court, the department had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). V.S.M.R Jagdishchandran

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

house site admeasuring 1941.51 sq.yds. for a consideration of Rs. 1.90 crores as against SRO value of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- and as per the provisions of section 50C, the sale consideration of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- as deemed consideration. The Assessing Officer, thus, noted that the income chargeable to tax under the head capital gain has escaped

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

section 48 of the Act. The net sale consideration as a result of transfer of capital asset is a consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer. There is difference between net sale consideration and full value consideration. In our considered view, if the assessee invests net sale consideration for the purpose of purchase/construction of new residential house property

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:

property on 11.2.2010 and received his share of consideration amounting to Rs.2,44,48,000/- and out of which a sum of Rs.1,42,00,000/- was spent for purchase of house site on 24.6.2010 and a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was paid to the contractor for construction of the house aggregating to Rs.1,62,20,000/- was incurred

SMT. T.V. PADMAVATHI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Smt.T.V.Padmavathi Vs. Income Tax Officer 40-15-11, Flat No.3 Ward-2(2) Sudha Apartments Vijayawada Greenland Hotel Road Vijayawada – 520 010 [Pan : Acxpt4644C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house is allowed under the head income from the property. The loss claimed by the assessee towards the interest payment to the firm is neither business loss nor the loss incurred for acquiring the property and not allowable deduction as per section 48

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. ALAPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, share income from partnership firms, other sources besides agricultural income, filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,77,840/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The case of the assessee (Alapati Rajendra Prasad) was selected for scrutiny under CASS and after following due process, assessment was completed under section

TATIPARTI SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.357/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tatiparti Satyanarayana V. Ito – Ward – 1(1) D.No. 47-15-10, Shop No. 201A Income Tax Office V.R.C. Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Acgpt5353F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

48,15,750/-. While filing the return of income assessee declared one property as Self-occupied and other two properties as let out and has accordingly declared rental income received by the assessee. However, it was noticed that assessee has wrongly filled up notional value of rent with respect of self-occupied property but has declared net Nil income with

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

48 even though there is not even an iota of evidence about the receipt of the consideration in excess of the amount mentioned in the sale deed also there is no evidence of any acquisition of assets or deposits in banks with respect to the huge amount (difference between the SRO value and the actual consideration of about

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

house property as commercial property whereas as per the GVMC records it is a residential property”. In response to the show cause notice the assessee submitted that it is not a residential property and used only for commercial purposes. Considering the replies of the assessee, the Ld. AO disallowed the deduction claimed

M. RAMA RAO.,YANAM vs. THE ITO, WARD -3,, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem. Rama Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, D.No. 1-460, Sriramnagar, Kakinada. Yanam. Pan No. Aachm 8536 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Shri Sesha Srinivas – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018. O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao

48,816/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 55,926/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and accordingly case was selected for scrutiny. After due (M. Rama Rao) process, assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Act. During the course

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

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 SRI GOWRI COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. The Sri Gowri Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Co-Operative Society, Visakhapatnam. D.No.49-34-32/1, Konathala Complex, Akkayyapalem Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 8140 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

48 (SC), the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where a co-operative society carrying on the business of banking and which is statutorily required to park a part of its funds in approved securities would be entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the interest income arising from such investments. 17. In CIT v. Ponni Sugars

SRI UMA KAMANDALESWARA CO - OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.,ATHREYAPURAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blesri Uma Kamandaleswara Vs. Addl.Cit, Kakinada Co-Op Rural Bank Ltd., Ryali, Range, Kakinada. Athreyapuram Mandalm, East Godavari District. Pan No. Aadas 4663 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

48 (SC), the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where a co-operative society carrying on the business of banking and which is statutorily required to park a part of its funds in approved securities would be entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the interest income arising from such investments. 17. In CIT v. Ponni Sugars

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

house property at Dabagardens, 6. The 'earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs8,012 made by the assessing officer towards dividend on chits. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.33,975 made by the assessing officer