PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

house property. 3. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] before us raised additional ground as below: “On the facts and in the circumstances

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

house property. 3. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] before us raised additional ground as below: “On the facts and in the circumstances

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

house property. 3. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] before us raised additional ground as below: “On the facts and in the circumstances

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

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 17. It has further been held that: “On the date of the search the assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made

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

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 17. It has further been held that: “On the date of the search the assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made

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

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 17. It has further been held that: “On the date of the search the assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made

BANDARU PADMAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

house property and interest income on fixed deposits, filed her return of income on 08/07/2013 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,34,500/-. The case was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee

GUNISETTY SUDHARANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.187/Viz/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gunisetty Sudha Rani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 5-156, Main Road, Ward-4(2), Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh – 530027. Pan: Antpg7996D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

House property 4,65,826 Income from business (Admitted) 7,86,381 Add Disallowance of freight expenses 3,23,512 Discrepancy in cash book 3,18,897 14,28,790 Income from other sources 37,818 Unexplained investment 20,00,000 Assessed income 39,32,436 Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee

K V RAMARAO,UNDI vs. THE ACIT, CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2022 To 117/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2017-18) K.V.Rama Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.13-26, Kondrothupeta, Undi Income Tax West Godavari Dist. Central Circle-2 [Pan : Annpk7628N] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property. Even during the appeal proceedings no submissions were made. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessee had substantial undisclosed income

K V RAMARAO,UNDI vs. THE ACIT, CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2022 To 117/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2017-18) K.V.Rama Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.13-26, Kondrothupeta, Undi Income Tax West Godavari Dist. Central Circle-2 [Pan : Annpk7628N] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property. Even during the appeal proceedings no submissions were made. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessee had substantial undisclosed income

K V RAMARAO,UNDI vs. THE ACIT, CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2022 To 117/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2017-18) K.V.Rama Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.13-26, Kondrothupeta, Undi Income Tax West Godavari Dist. Central Circle-2 [Pan : Annpk7628N] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property. Even during the appeal proceedings no submissions were made. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessee had substantial undisclosed income

K V RAMARAO,UNDI vs. THE ACIT, CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2022 To 117/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2017-18) K.V.Rama Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.13-26, Kondrothupeta, Undi Income Tax West Godavari Dist. Central Circle-2 [Pan : Annpk7628N] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property. Even during the appeal proceedings no submissions were made. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessee had substantial undisclosed income

K V RAMARAO,UNDI vs. THE ACIT, CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2022 To 117/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2017-18) K.V.Rama Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.13-26, Kondrothupeta, Undi Income Tax West Godavari Dist. Central Circle-2 [Pan : Annpk7628N] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property. Even during the appeal proceedings no submissions were made. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessee had substantial undisclosed income

K V RAMARAO,UNDI vs. THE ACIT, CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2022 To 117/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2017-18) K.V.Rama Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.13-26, Kondrothupeta, Undi Income Tax West Godavari Dist. Central Circle-2 [Pan : Annpk7628N] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property. Even during the appeal proceedings no submissions were made. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessee had substantial undisclosed income

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

house and since it did not materialize, subsequent to announcement of demonetization, the assessee deposited the cash into the bank account. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee while filing his return of income has accepted this fact of depositing Rs. 90 lakhs into the NRO account. However, 3 considering that assessee gave contradictory statements regarding withdrawal of amount from

SRIDHAR PINNAMANENI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

undisclosed business income. There are no details as to whether, it is an amount of on-money received, over and above the SRO value or the entire sale consideration received for sale of flats. Going by the observations of the AO, it seems that addition is on entire gross receipts pertain to sale of land. Once the amount pertains

SRIDHAR PINNAMANENI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

undisclosed business income. There are no details as to whether, it is an amount of on-money received, over and above the SRO value or the entire sale consideration received for sale of flats. Going by the observations of the AO, it seems that addition is on entire gross receipts pertain to sale of land. Once the amount pertains

SRIDHAR PINNAMANENI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CERCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

undisclosed business income. There are no details as to whether, it is an amount of on-money received, over and above the SRO value or the entire sale consideration received for sale of flats. Going by the observations of the AO, it seems that addition is on entire gross receipts pertain to sale of land. Once the amount pertains