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

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

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

property is Rs. 1,70,31,960/- and since the Chivatam Village is under the Municipal Limits of Tanuku Municipality, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that there is an “income escaping

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala); (ii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. DCIT reported in [2012] 27 taxmann.com 167 (Andhra Pradesh); (iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) in support

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

70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala); (ii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. DCIT reported in [2012] 27 taxmann.com 167 (Andhra Pradesh); (iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) in support

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

70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala); (ii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. DCIT reported in [2012] 27 taxmann.com 167 (Andhra Pradesh); (iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) in support

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)

70,00,000/-. In the Agreement of sale, the vendor acknowledges the receipt of advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash at the time of signing the Agreement in which it is also noticed that as per clause 3, it is specifically mentioned that the vendor shall register the land in favour of the vendee or his nominee

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)

70/- without referring matter to DVO on assumption and presumption basis is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to consider assessee has not paid any amount 3 except the sale consideration, therefore without appreciating the facts & without considering the valuation report submitted by the assessee was prepared

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

housing godowns at various places viz., Visakhapatnam, Kakinada and Hyderabad. Sri AT Rayudu and Sri A. Avnash are the Directors of the assessee-company who hold 45% each of the share- holding in the company. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 15/09/2014 but the assessment got abated as search

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

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

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

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

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