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

2) of the Act is satisfied that AO has made\na satisfaction regarding expenditure not being made by the appellant\nunder section 14A. However relying on various decision of Hon'ble\ncourts relied by appellant in its submission the disallowance is restricted\nto Rs 20,585/-. The balance disallowance is deleted.\n6.5. Ground of Appeal No. 6– disallowance

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

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)

56(2)(x)(b) * B is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity to the appellant before passing the assessment order and confirmed the addition without considering the submission of the assessee, therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The assessee is denied

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, 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, 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

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

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

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

56 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka); (iii) Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar vs. CIT, Chennai [2019] 111 taxmann.com 180 (Madras) and (iv) Order of the ITAT, Bangalore “B” Bench in the case of Ramaiah Dorairaj vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore dated 09/12/2020. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that as per section

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

property in Telangana during the\nF.Y.2018-19 admeasuring Ac. 23-25 Guntas at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. Ld. AO\nbased on the incriminating material in the form of sale agreement has observed\nthat the on-money of Rs.12,90,000/- per acre in cash over and above the document\nvalue has paid by the assessee-company