Search: penalty u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

142(1) of the Act assessee’s representatives filed requisite information called for. Ld.Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] during the course of scrutiny proceedings recomputed the Long-Term Capital Gains at Rs.9,77,03,500/-. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A), Hyderabad, wherein he partly allowed the appeal

OMCON REIGN FOREST PROJECTS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 82/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

142(1) were issued, to the assessee and completed the assessment on total income for the assessment years u/s 143(3) as under : Income A.Y. Assessed (Rs.) 2012-13 64,80,410 2013-14 1,22,37,210 2014-15 10,14,700 2.2. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that

OMCON REIGN FOREST PROJECTS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 81/VIZ/2018[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

142(1) were issued, to the assessee and completed the assessment on total income for the assessment years u/s 143(3) as under : Income A.Y. Assessed (Rs.) 2012-13 64,80,410 2013-14 1,22,37,210 2014-15 10,14,700 2.2. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, for the year under consideration, the assessee filed it return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.1,57,90,420/-. The return filed

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

section 271(1)(c) clearly states that Explanation-3 shall have no application if a notice U/s. 142(1) or 148 of the Act was issued within two years and if an assessee files a return of his income within a period of two years in response to a notice U/s. 148, he would be caught within the mischief

MARTURI SRINIVASA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Marturi Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-75, 2Nd Line Ward-1(1) Rajeev Nagar Colony Guntur Atchampet Post, Guntur [Pan : Bvnpm4138E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were also issued to the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, after considering the details and documents filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 was passed, accepting the returned income of Rs.3,01,680/-. During the course of assessment proceedings

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 591/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 582/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 585/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 583/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 586/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 589/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO,,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 592/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 579/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 580/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

142(1) calling for the return of income for the AY 2006-07. The appellant chose not to file the return of income though there are prima facie transactions indicating taxable income. It is the argument of Authorized Representative of the appellant that requirement of section 153C is nto mentioned in the satisfaction note is devoid of fact. The Assessing