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

house property”, and had wrongly concluded that the same\nwas rightly disclosed by the assessee company as its “business income”,\ncannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.\n19. Apropos the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A r.w\nRule 8D of Rs. 15,42,448/- that was scaled down by the CIT(A) to the\nextent

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

56,025/- as tax at Source (TDS) on the total amount of Rs. 1,11,20,502/- which was clearly mentioned in Form-26AS, and the credit of the said amount of tax deducted at source was claimed by the assessee in his return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, the entire

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

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

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, 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)

56,26,500/- that was paid by the assessee through cheque in the name of the NRIs was disclosed by the NRIs in their returns of income and brought to tax in their hands. Accordingly, the CIT(A), based on his aforesaid deliberations, quashed the order passed by the A.O U/ss. 201(1)/(1A) and directed the AO to delete

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

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

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, 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

SATHI TRINATHA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house within the time prescribed U/s. 54F(1) of the Act, the assessee could not be denied the benefit of section 54F of the 5 Act. For this proposition and in support of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT (Central), Nagpur vs. Murli

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

property. Following the same logic, to deny the benefit of additional depreciation to a generating entity on the basis that electricity is not an “article” or “thing” is in our view an artificially restrictive meaning of the provision. The benefit of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments