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

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

house site admeasuring 1941.51 sq.yds. for a consideration of Rs. 1.90 crores as against SRO value of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- and as per the provisions of section 50C, the sale consideration of Rs. 2,95,02,500/- as deemed consideration. The Assessing Officer, thus, noted that the income chargeable to tax under the head capital gain has escaped

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

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

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

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

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

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

property, other sources and agricultural income, filed its return of income on 31/12/2013 for the AY 2013-14 admitting a total income of Rs. 11,63,250/- and agricultural income of Rs. 5,14,000/-. Subsequently, search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee and its members

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

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

property, other sources and agricultural income, filed its return of income on 31/12/2013 for the AY 2013-14 admitting a total income of Rs. 11,63,250/- and agricultural income of Rs. 5,14,000/-. Subsequently, search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee and its members

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

property, other sources and agricultural income, filed its return of income on 31/12/2013 for the AY 2013-14 admitting a total income of Rs. 11,63,250/- and agricultural income of Rs. 5,14,000/-. Subsequently, search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee and its members

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

92,000 C: Savings of F.Y. 2015-16 Rent 2,40,000 Miscellaneous Income 4,80,000 7,20,000 24,12,000 Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 244 & 268/VIZ/2023 Indira Voona 5. The Ld.AO considering the explanation by the assessee being not satisfactory treated the cash deposits during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 17,86,000/- as unexplained

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

92,000 C: Savings of F.Y. 2015-16 Rent 2,40,000 Miscellaneous Income 4,80,000 7,20,000 24,12,000 Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 244 & 268/VIZ/2023 Indira Voona 5. The Ld.AO considering the explanation by the assessee being not satisfactory treated the cash deposits during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 17,86,000/- as unexplained

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. DANDU BRAHMANANDAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

house property, capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.168,83,71,070/- on 27.09.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee was a major stake holder, holding 10.34% of shares in M/s Tirumala Milk Products

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. BATTINI NAGESWARA RAO, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeals of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Danda Brahmanandam Income Tax 13Aj Block, 5Th Street Circle-2(1) Santhi Colony Guntur Annanagar, Chennai [Pan : Aespd2628B]

house property, capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs.168,83,71,070/- on 27.09.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee was a major stake holder, holding 10.34% of shares in M/s Tirumala Milk Products

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

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

property in Gudivadavari Street, Vijayawada. According to the Ld.Pr.CIT, the registration took place on 15.12.2006 and the loan was granted by Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank on 04.01.2007. The payment was preceded by the bank loan, therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT was of the view that the sources for acquiring the house remained unexplained. This issue also related to the assessment year

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

property in Gudivadavari Street, Vijayawada. According to the Ld.Pr.CIT, the registration took place on 15.12.2006 and the loan was granted by Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank on 04.01.2007. The payment was preceded by the bank loan, therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT was of the view that the sources for acquiring the house remained unexplained. This issue also related to the assessment year

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

property in Gudivadavari Street, Vijayawada. According to the Ld.Pr.CIT, the registration took place on 15.12.2006 and the loan was granted by Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank on 04.01.2007. The payment was preceded by the bank loan, therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT was of the view that the sources for acquiring the house remained unexplained. This issue also related to the assessment year

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

property in Gudivadavari Street, Vijayawada. According to the Ld.Pr.CIT, the registration took place on 15.12.2006 and the loan was granted by Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank on 04.01.2007. The payment was preceded by the bank loan, therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT was of the view that the sources for acquiring the house remained unexplained. This issue also related to the assessment year