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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

gains of business or profession". Hon’ble Kerala High Court decision in case of CIT vs Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd (263 Taxman 377) wherein Hon’ble Court Private Limited vs. DCIT held that in cases where income received is not from bare letting out property but on account of facilities and services rendered, operations involved in such letting

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

gains of business or profession". Hon’ble Kerala High Court decision in case of CIT vs Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd (263 Taxman 377) wherein Hon’ble Court Private Limited vs. DCIT held that in cases where income received is not from bare letting out property but on account of facilities and services rendered, operations involved in such letting

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

capital towards construction of properties, Page 32/Para\n2.33 of the CIT(A) order. We, thus, are of a firm conviction that, as the\nsubject agreements were filed by the assessee company in the course\nof the assessment proceedings, therefore, the grievance of the revenue,\nthat the CIT(A) had admitted the same as additional evidence, which, in\nturn, is based

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)

short “Ld.DR”] in her written submissions reiterated that assessee has given lease of the buildings, furniture and fixtures and the income derived thereon shall be Page No. 27 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College treated as “Income from House Property”. Assessee was earlier receiving fees from students, application money, etc., but assessee received only rental income and interest during

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)

short “Ld.DR”] in her written submissions reiterated that assessee has given lease of the buildings, furniture and fixtures and the income derived thereon shall be Page No. 27 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College treated as “Income from House Property”. Assessee was earlier receiving fees from students, application money, etc., but assessee received only rental income and interest during

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

short term capital gains as against long term capital gains returned by the assessee. 3. All the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to; alter; modify; delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] argued that 4. the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3) , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MEENA TANGUDU, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Properties in pursuance of a Joint Development\nAgreement, in consideration assessee received 4.5 flats representing 45% of the\nconsideration for selling the 55% of the land.. Assessee claimed deduction\nunder section 54 of the Act with respect to the 4.5 flats she acquired in\npursuance to the Joint DevelopmentAgreement. Ld. CIT(A) by relying on\nvarious judicial pronouncements allowed

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

property, thus, in the absence of the requisite details, held the entire amount of the sale consideration of Rs. 61.60 lakhs (supra) as his income under the head “Short term capital gain” (STCG) and added the same to his income. 6 Venkata Ramana Goda vs. ACIT 6. Accordingly, the AO, after making the aforementioned additions, vide his order passed under

HARESH KUMAR LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

short “Ld.Pr.CIT”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1075122760(1) dated 27.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2021-22. I.T.A. No.264/VIZ/2025 Haresh Kumar Lalwani 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 10,10,260/ which includes long term capital gains of Rs. 8,19,153/- and income from

MANGAMMA CHIRUMAMILLA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

house, it was mentioned that the same was 4 Mangamma Chirumamilla invested in fixed deposit and she is having some interest income. As far as the source of cash deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, it was claimed that she has got an agricultural land and was deriving agricultural income, out of which, cash of Rs.10

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)

short “the Act”) dated 28/07/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains U/s. 45 of the Act on sale of immovable property by placing reliance on the additional evidence produced by the assessee for the first time before the appellate authority, but without providing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine such additional evidence and submit his report as to the admissibility or otherwise of the same in terms

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)

short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has pleaded the following grounds in the instant appeal : “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the order passed & addition made at Rs.1,10,40,750/- by assessment unit U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, therefore

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no\nreason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue as the facts of\nthe case could not be controverted by the Ld.AR. We therefore uphold the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is\ndismissed