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

house property”; (ii). sustainability of the CIT(A) view that the\ndisallowance under Section 14A of the Act was liable to be restricted to\nthe extent of the exempt income received by the assessee company\nduring the subject year; and (iii). sustainability of the CIT(A) order, in the\nbackdrop of the fact that he had, in the course

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

Bench: Us:

56 (Bom). The assessee in the present case had executed an “agreement to sell” and paid compensation to the earlier party to release the property from encumbrance. The High Court held that the payment made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Act. (C). Yogesh Patel Vs. DCIT 32 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra

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

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property of Rs. 3,26,665/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny in respect of cash deposits and purchase of immovable property and the Ld. AO has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.12.2022 determining the total income of Rs.73,71,744/- by making addition of Rs.35

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

house property, income from capital gains and income from other sources for the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2021-22. In other words, the assessee does not have income from business or profession. If an assessee does not have income from business, the assessee does not require to maintain books of account for computation of income in terms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property in addition to agricultural income of Rs.7,94,923/-. Subsequently the return was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS and the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) and determining total assessed income of Rs.4,31,46,200/- by taking Rs.4,17,00,000/- towards income u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. The appellant preferred an appeal against

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. 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

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

house worth Rs. 25,56,000/- vide Document No. 6224/2015 registered at SRO, Rajanagaram. The source of investment is the advance amount received on the development agreement entered with Bhavya Builders vide Doc. No. 12772/2015 registered at SRO, Rajahmundry by the assessee and her husband. The Ld. AO on verification of the assessee’s return of income observed that

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

house worth Rs. 25,56,000/- vide Document No. 6224/2015 registered at SRO, Rajanagaram. The source of investment is the advance amount received on the development agreement entered with Bhavya Builders vide Doc. No. 12772/2015 registered at SRO, Rajahmundry by the assessee and her husband. The Ld. AO on verification of the assessee’s return of income observed that

MANJU VANI CHIGURUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.363/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) V. Manju Vani Chigurupati Acit – Circle -2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #16, K.C.P. Colony Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007 M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aazpc9498B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

House property and income other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for details. In response, assessee submitted her reply on 16.12.2019 explaining the sources of cash deposits, but has failed to explain the continuous cash deposits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

House\nMain Road, Lakshmipuram\nGuntur - 522007\nAndhra Pradesh\n[PAN:AAACV7767L]\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\nDCIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1\nIncome Tax Office\nCentral Revenue Buildings\nNear Collector Office\nMahathma Gandhi Road\nVijayawada - 522002\nAndhra Pradesh\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nकरदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented by\n: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate\nराजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented by\n: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

House Income Tax Office\nMain Road, Lakshmipuram Central Revenue Buildings\nGuntur - 522007 Near Collector Office\nAndhra Pradesh Mahathma Gandhi Road\n[PAN:AAACV7767L] Vijayawada - 522002\nAndhra Pradesh\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nकरदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri GVN Hari, Advocate\nराजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT(DR)\nसुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

House\nMain Road, Lakshmipuram\nGuntur - 522007\nAndhra Pradesh\n[PAN:AAACV7767L]\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\nDCIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1\nIncome Tax Office\nCentral Revenue Buildings\nNear Collector Office\nMahathma Gandhi Road\nVijayawada - 522002\nAndhra Pradesh\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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

56,52,166/- in response to return of income filed under section 148 of the\nAct. He argued that the Ld. AO while adding estimation of Rs.21,60,86,928/- as\nunaccounted income has not given any deduction in the expenses and therefore\nLd. CIT(A) has estimated the profit @30% on the unaccounted sales. He further\npleaded that there