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

property\", had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz. (i). East India Housing and\nDevelopment Trust Ltd. Vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC); (ii). Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); (iii).\nCIT, Bombay City 1 Vs. National Storage Private Limited (1967) 66 ITR\n596

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)

section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.06.2019 was issued calling for certain information from the assessee. As there was no compliance from the assessee, Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice dated 24.09.2019 requesting the assessee to show cause why the rent received cannot be charged to tax as “Income from House Property”. The assessee responded belatedly

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)

section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.06.2019 was issued calling for certain information from the assessee. As there was no compliance from the assessee, Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice dated 24.09.2019 requesting the assessee to show cause why the rent received cannot be charged to tax as “Income from House Property”. The assessee responded belatedly

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

1) 65[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

SITA RAMA RAJU SAGI,BHIMAVARAM vs. ITO WARD 1 BHIMAVARAM, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, Pan: Egapa3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. Hema Latha K, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 263 of the Act. 5. The contention of the Ld. PCIT while passing the subject order U/s. 263 of the Act that Ld. AO allowed the house property loss to be carried forward without making any enquiry or examination on the issue from his side is erroneous and factually misplaced since Ld. AO made enquiries called for the details

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

properties purchased, investments, loans and advances during the FY 2013-14 and also asked to furnish the sources towards cash deposits in bank accounts. In response the Assessee’s Representative furnished the copies of the housing loan maintained at Andhra Bank, Tirupati. The Ld. AR submitted that the loans were claimed as expenditure as the loan is utilized for personal

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

properties purchased, investments, loans and advances during the FY 2013-14 and also asked to furnish the sources towards cash deposits in bank accounts. In response the Assessee’s Representative furnished the copies of the housing loan maintained at Andhra Bank, Tirupati. The Ld. AR submitted that the loans were claimed as expenditure as the loan is utilized for personal

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

properties purchased, investments, loans and advances during the FY 2013-14 and also asked to furnish the sources towards cash deposits in bank accounts. In response the Assessee’s Representative furnished the copies of the housing loan maintained at Andhra Bank, Tirupati. The Ld. AR submitted that the loans were claimed as expenditure as the loan is utilized for personal

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

properties purchased, investments, loans and advances during the FY 2013-14 and also asked to furnish the sources towards cash deposits in bank accounts. In response the Assessee’s Representative furnished the copies of the housing loan maintained at Andhra Bank, Tirupati. The Ld. AR submitted that the loans were claimed as expenditure as the loan is utilized for personal

THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LTD.,,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU

section 21 of\nthe A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. I further find that the appellant\nhas distributed the surplus to only 177 members and not to the remaining\nmembers of the society. Thus, It is very clear that the society is not covered\nby the principle of mutuality. Therefore, I hold that the Ld AO is correct in\ndenying

THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LIMITED,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU

house property.\n•\nLoans are granted against the mortgage of the property in favour of\nthe Society.\n•\nThese members are entitled to receive dividends and also have\nvoting rights in the Society.\n(b) \"B\" Class Members\n•\nAdmission to this category requires payment of a membership fee of\nRs. 10/-.\nPage No. 7\n•\nUpon payment

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

66,25,000/- on 15/11/2014 which is within a period of two years from the date of sale of the original property on 11/12/2012. The Ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 54F(4) of the Act and therefore set-aside the assessment order and directed

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and argued that reopening of the assessment itself

RAMESH SANGHVI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.504/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ramesh Sanghvi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 108, 4-4-933 Royal Plaza 23-2-4-6/4 Kks Towers Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad R.R. Pet, Eluru Telangana - 500001 Andhra Pradesh - 534002 [Pan: Ajeps4401J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

House property and income from other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and after verification of the issues, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] made an addition of Rs. 1,67,44,623/- arising out of sale of property and wrong claim of interest. Ld. AO thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A stating that