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

Bench: Us:

70,714/- has been deducted so as to arrive at chargeable Long -term Capital Gains of Rs. 2,53,79,286/-. The details of the amounts reduced are as under: i) Rs. 2,00,00,000/- paid by the purchaser directly to M/s. Kothapeta Settibalija Ramamandiram Committee, Rajahmundry (PAN: AAGAK2943P), the dispute holder by way of cheque no: 787357 with

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said

AS RAJA SONS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.379/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Income Tax Office D.No. 10-5-11/5 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Care Hospital, Waltair Main Road Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam - 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4796M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

70,36,870/- on 29.09.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee through ITBA module. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has entered into a lease agreement with three parties to rent out portions as follows: - Area Let Monthly

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI JASTI SRIDHAR BABU, KESARAPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

house property i.e. one residential flat of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which includes additional work i.e. power connection charges, power deposit, woodwork, interior works, electrical fittings, corpus fund and internal painting etc. The AO ultimately considered the sale amount received by the Assessee to the tune of Rs. 3,70,22,969/- and while subtracting the indexed cost

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

70,890/-. From the revised return, the Assessing Officer has found that assessee has declared the income of Rs. 1,26,201/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and had claimed the deduction of Rs.96,48,764/- relating to interest on bank loans and Rs.76,68,023/- towards interest on unsecured loans thereby resulting the loss of Rs.1

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

70,890/-. From the revised return, the Assessing Officer has found that assessee has declared the income of Rs. 1,26,201/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and had claimed the deduction of Rs.96,48,764/- relating to interest on bank loans and Rs.76,68,023/- towards interest on unsecured loans thereby resulting the loss of Rs.1

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

70,890/-. From the revised return, the Assessing Officer has found that assessee has declared the income of Rs. 1,26,201/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and had claimed the deduction of Rs.96,48,764/- relating to interest on bank loans and Rs.76,68,023/- towards interest on unsecured loans thereby resulting the loss of Rs.1

G. VENKATA KRISHNA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

house. It was also noticed that the construction was undertaken during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the survey final report it was mentioned that the property was referred to the Valuation Cell for ascertaining the correct value of construction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted the cost of construction at Rs.37

M/S. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI STATIONERY & FANCY MART,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

house. It was also noticed that the construction was undertaken during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the survey final report it was mentioned that the property was referred to the Valuation Cell for ascertaining the correct value of construction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted the cost of construction at Rs.37

M/S. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI STATIONERY & FANCY MART,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

house. It was also noticed that the construction was undertaken during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the survey final report it was mentioned that the property was referred to the Valuation Cell for ascertaining the correct value of construction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted the cost of construction at Rs.37

G. VENKATA KRISHNA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

house. It was also noticed that the construction was undertaken during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the survey final report it was mentioned that the property was referred to the Valuation Cell for ascertaining the correct value of construction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted the cost of construction at Rs.37

G. VENKATA KRISHNA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

house. It was also noticed that the construction was undertaken during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the survey final report it was mentioned that the property was referred to the Valuation Cell for ascertaining the correct value of construction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted the cost of construction at Rs.37

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house who was earning income from his advocate profession. 11. Are you filing your individual returns of income, if so, please give details? Ans. I have been regularly filing my returns of income ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) individually as and when I was earning taxable income. However, I was not filing my returns of income for thelast

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house who was earning income from his advocate profession. 11. Are you filing your individual returns of income, if so, please give details? Ans. I have been regularly filing my returns of income ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) individually as and when I was earning taxable income. However, I was not filing my returns of income for thelast

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house who was earning income from his advocate profession. 11. Are you filing your individual returns of income, if so, please give details? Ans. I have been regularly filing my returns of income ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) individually as and when I was earning taxable income. However, I was not filing my returns of income for thelast

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house who was earning income from his advocate profession. 11. Are you filing your individual returns of income, if so, please give details? Ans. I have been regularly filing my returns of income ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) individually as and when I was earning taxable income. However, I was not filing my returns of income for thelast

CHINTAPALLI SUBHAKARA RAO(HUF) ,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-(2)1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.554/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2008-09) Dr.Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (Huf) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Represented By Smt. C.Leela (Kartha) Income Tax D.No.29-10-1, Narasimhanaidu Street Circle-2(1) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aadhc1772N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

70,661/- vide cheque No.416121 dated 29.07.2010 were also paid from HUF account. From the above details, furnished by the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has sold the property of HUF and acquired the apartment or the residential house in the nucleus of the HUF. The funds are flown from the account of HUF. Though the assessee