MADDI SUDRASHAN RAO,CHILAKAURIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

house property, income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 24/11/2017 declaring total taxable income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify “cash deposits during demonetization period”. Accordingly, notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

VENKATA SURYANARAYANA VISWANADHAM,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2015-16 Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Viswanadham, Vizayanagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan : Adnpv5136A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar (Hybrid) Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, adding it to the total income. Additionally, the AO noted interest income of ₹57,530/-, out of which ₹36,268/- (not previously declared) was also added. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, with a total assessed income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. AHMED EJAZ, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 462/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ahmed Ejaz, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aakpe6675R (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Housing Private Limited, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 90 lakhs as unexplained investment and added the same to the total income of the assessee while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before

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)

house property, income from capital gains and income from other sources for the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2021-22. In other words, the assessee does not have income from business or profession. If an assessee does not have income from business, the assessee does not require to maintain books of account for computation of income in terms

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)

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Ld.Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee made cash withdrawals as stated before revenue authorities on 22.07.2016 and 28.07.2016. Ld.AR further submitted bank statements evidencing the withdrawals are submitted in paper book at page no. 10. Further, he also submitted that assessee is a regular filer of income tax returns disclosing

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)

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Ld.Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee made cash withdrawals as stated before revenue authorities on 22.07.2016 and 28.07.2016. Ld.AR further submitted bank statements evidencing the withdrawals are submitted in paper book at page no. 10. Further, he also submitted that assessee is a regular filer of income tax returns disclosing

PURNACHANDRA RAO MANDAVA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purnachandra Rao Mandava Vs. Income Tax Officer Ambica Street, Powerpet Ward-2 Eluru Eluru [Pan : Aizpm5102C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

house property and other sources filed his return of income 2 I.T.A. No.52/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Purnachandra Rao Mandava, Eluru for the A.Y.2017-18 on 27.03.2018 by admitting total income of Rs.4,07,470/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine cash deposits during demonetization period. Accordingly, statutory notices

TIRUMALA SURYA KUMARI ,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.215/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Tirumala Surya Kumari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Aezpt7686L Srikakulam. (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 : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

house property, income from business being income from wines and partnership firm besides income from other sources. The assessee e-filed her return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 31/10/2013 declaring an income of Rs. 76,050/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,17,040/-. The return was processed by the CPC and later the return was selected

VENKATA RAMANA VOONNA,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.251/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Ramana Voonna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Abipv2254N Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

unexplained credits U/s. 68 of the Act as follows: (i) The bank account statements show that the assessee is well acquainted with the banking channels and the property was transferred to 2-person. The sale deed dated 27/05/2011 reveals that out of 2 persons, one is employee and other person is doing business. Besides assessee, both persons will have bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

money for completing the property without any details furnished by the assessee. (iv) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is not the issue whether assessee made expenditure of Rs. 42,28,500/- or not in completing the building but to explain the sources for investment of Rs.42,28,500/- (v) The CIT(A) has not passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

money for completing the property without any details furnished by the assessee. (iv) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is not the issue whether assessee made expenditure of Rs. 42,28,500/- or not in completing the building but to explain the sources for investment of Rs.42,28,500/- (v) The CIT(A) has not passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.LOURDU REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

money for completing the property without any details furnished by the assessee. (iv) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is not the issue whether assessee made expenditure of Rs. 42,28,500/- or not in completing the building but to explain the sources for investment of Rs.42,28,500/- (v) The CIT(A) has not passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. Y.JOJI REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

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

money for completing the property without any details furnished by the assessee. (iv) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is not the issue whether assessee made expenditure of Rs. 42,28,500/- or not in completing the building but to explain the sources for investment of Rs.42,28,500/- (v) The CIT(A) has not passed

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

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

SRINIVAS REDDY,TANUKU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

house property and also being a partner in M/s. Srinivasa Poultry\nComplex filed his return of income on 30.09.2012 admitting a total income of\nRs.11,19,090/-. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was\nconducted on 13.12.2011 in the case of M/s. Laxmi Prasanna Agro Paper\nIndustries Limited where the assessee has made some investments

MANJU VANI CHIGURUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.363/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) V. Manju Vani Chigurupati Acit – Circle -2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #16, K.C.P. Colony Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007 M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aazpc9498B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

House property and income other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for details. In response, assessee submitted her reply on 16.12.2019 explaining the sources of cash deposits, but has failed to explain the continuous cash deposits

CHALUMURU VENKATA RAO,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Chalumuru Venkata Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer #1, Opp. Rtc Complex Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Adxpc8298G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08 .03.2023

house property, of Rs.8,43,000/- on account of fictitious liability, of Rs.13,00,000/- on account of deposits in bank given by assessee’s father, Shri Ch.Appala Naidu and charging of tax u/s 115BBE. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld.CIT