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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

Housing (P) Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Visakhapatnam. Tax, PAN: AADCA 2121 Q Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 21/12/2022 Pronouncement

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

Housing (P) Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Visakhapatnam. Tax, PAN: AADCA 2121 Q Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 21/12/2022 Pronouncement

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

Housing (P) Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Visakhapatnam. Tax, PAN: AADCA 2121 Q Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 21/12/2022 Pronouncement

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 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NARSIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.63/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kanumuri Narasimharaju Circle-3(1) 50-1-23/46, Flat No.202 Visakhapatnam Ksr Complex, C-Block Opp.Rytu Bazaar Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aerpk2717F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.40/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.63/Viz/2021) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Kanumuri Narasimharaju Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 50-1-23/46, Flat No.202 Circle-3(1) Ksr Complex, C-Block Visakhapatnam Opp.Rytu Bazaar Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aerpk2717F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property and other sources apart from agricultural income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 28.09.2018. The AO received information from investigation wing as per which the assessee is Managing Partner of M/s Kasyap Home Needs and has purchased 4500 sq.yards of land at Anadapuram from Shri Nalla Madhusudhan Reddy

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. 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

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

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)

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 and withdrawals

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

56,34,856/- and added back to the total income of the assessee. 7 6. The Ld. AO also made disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

56,34,856/- and added back to the total income of the assessee. 7 6. The Ld. AO also made disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend