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

house property".\n10. Further, the AO observed that though the assessee company had\nduring the subject year disclosed in its “balance sheet” under the head\n"Current assets", the investments it had made in unlisted and listed\nequities to an extent of RS. 15,42,44,890/-, but had not attributed any\nportion of the expenditure debited in its Profit

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)

house property. Accordingly, the points of difference referred for my decision is decided in concurrence with the learned AM. The appeal file along with this order be placed before the Division Bench for passing an order of deciding the appeal in accordance with the majority view. (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 23rd MAY, 2025 Vinodan/sps Page

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)

house property. Accordingly, the points of difference referred for my decision is decided in concurrence with the learned AM. The appeal file along with this order be placed before the Division Bench for passing an order of deciding the appeal in accordance with the majority view. (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 23rd MAY, 2025 Vinodan/sps Page

NALLAMOTHU VIJAYA LAKSHMI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.164/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nallamothu Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-5-19/11 Ward-2(1) Raja’S Gardens Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acbpn3248C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28 .02.2023

50,000 received on sub lease of property under the head “income from house property” as this income had already been admitted in the return of income under the head “income from other sources”. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. Ground No.1 and 4 are general in nature, which does not require specific

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

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 to Rs. 1.5 cores in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of V.S.M.R. Jagdadishchandran vs Commissioner of Income Tax reported

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)

50,000 claimed u/s 24 of the Act. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 6. Ground Nos. 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRABHU KISHORE VALLURUPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and\nrevenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

50-92-35\nShankarmatham Road\nOpposite Reliance Fresh\nBeside Reliance Fresh\nNearby Main Road\nMadhuranagar, Dwarakanagar\nVisakhapatnam – 530016\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\nVallurupalli Prabhu Kishore\nD.No. 10-50-22/1\nSiripuram Junction\nVisakhapatnam – 530003\n[PAN: AARPV7235M]\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nकरदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented by\nराजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented by\nसुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date of Conclusion

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

50,000 (Minor daughter of the Branch assessee) Total 17,86,000 4. The Ld.AO thereafter required the assessee to furnish the details and explain the sources for cash deposits made by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Since assessee did not respond, another notice was issued on 12.10.2019. In response to that notice, assessee submitted the information called

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

50,000 (Minor daughter of the Branch assessee) Total 17,86,000 4. The Ld.AO thereafter required the assessee to furnish the details and explain the sources for cash deposits made by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Since assessee did not respond, another notice was issued on 12.10.2019. In response to that notice, assessee submitted the information called

VENKATA SURYANARAYANA VISWANADHAM,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2015-16 Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Viswanadham, Vizayanagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan : Adnpv5136A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar (Hybrid) Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

house but later has not found a suitable property and as such, deposited the funds in fixed deposits to earn interest. The ld.AR further submitted that assessee being a retired government employee, had saved these amounts over several years and that he has no intention to evade taxes. 5. The ld.AR contended that the absence of corroborative evidence should

VALLURUPALLI PRABHU KISHORE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

50-92-35\nShankarmatham Road\nOpposite Reliance Fresh\nBeside Reliance Fresh\nNearby Main Road\nMadhuranagar, Dwarakanagar\nVisakhapatnam – 530016\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nकरदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented by\nराजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented by\nसुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing\nघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement\nShri GVN Hari, AR\nShri D. Hema Bhupal

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

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

section 143(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 27.01.2020 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of Ld. AO (CPC) as well as Ld CIT(A) are contrary to the facts and also the provisions / law applicable

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50,000/-on 26/3/2015. The Ld. Pr. CIT considering the date of registration and the date of sale concluded that this cannot be treated as LTCG and has to be taxed as STCG since the assessee has not held the property for more than three years. Consequently, the claim made by the assessee U/s. 54 of the Act was also

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