THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI M. SOMABRAHMAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act. The assessee admitted additional income for the assessment year 2013-14 with the following breakup: Sl. Description Amount No. Cheques deposited into the bank account of my 1 56,74,868.00 employees (present & former) 2 Gold jewellery weighing 1530.40 gms 55,94,482.00 3 22 carats of diamonds 11,79,350.00 4 Silver

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

u/s 153C\nd.\nwhere return was filed for the\nfirst time in response to notice\nus. 148 of the IT Act. (refer\n270A (3)(b))\nNot Applicable since assessee's case is\nnot a case of notice issued u/s148\n11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories\nand hence even on merits penalty

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be cancelled in as much as the notice dt.30-03-2014 initiating the penalty proceedings did not specify clearly as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 7. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing

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

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

15 during the survey proceedings. He further submitted that the admission was made by the assessee in order to avoid litigation and to buy peace with the Department. He therefore submitted that since it is a voluntary admission of additional income, there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and hence, levy of penalty U/s

D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA‟s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision of the coordinate

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

15 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam is a mere right to specific performance or a right to sue and therefore not transferable u/s. 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence such right did not constitute a capital asset and hence the transfer of agreement right would not give rise

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

15 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam is a mere right to specific performance or a right to sue and therefore not transferable u/s. 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence such right did not constitute a capital asset and hence the transfer of agreement right would not give rise

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

u/s 153C d. where return was filed for the Not Applicable since assessee's case is first time in response to notice not a case of notice issued u/s148 us. 148 of the IT Act. (refer 270A (3)(b)) 11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories and hence even on merits penalty

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

u/s 153C d. where return was filed for the Not Applicable since assessee's case is first time in response to notice not a case of notice issued u/s148 us. 148 of the IT Act. (refer 270A (3)(b)) 11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories and hence even on merits penalty

B.ADINARAYANA,,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE ITO,, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleb. Adinarayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, S/O Ramu Naidu, D.No. 5-9-32, Anakapalle. Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalle-1. Pan No. Aetpb 5443 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision of the coordinate

MARPUDI PUSHKALA RANI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Marpudi Pushkala Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), D.No. 12-7-110/2, Flat No. 304, Guntur. Smr Vinay Elegance, Kesavanagar Colony, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. Pan No. Awmpm 8121 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA‟s Emerald Meadows (Smt. Marpudi Pushkala Rani) (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also

PUSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepusarla Subhash, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-13-6, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aigpp 2446 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ (Pusarla Subhash) 14. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision

YARAMATI VEERA RAGHAVULU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleyaramati Veera Raghavulu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. Gowthami Refrigeration Rajamahendravaram. Services, D.No. 36-10-47, Stadium Road, Innispeta, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aanpy 9557 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We find that the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) being a latest judgment, has considered the very same issue and held that non- striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec

T.SATYANARAYANA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletalluri Satyanarayana, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Prop. : Sairam Parlour, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 47-11-9, Diamond Park, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaqpt 9170 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec. 274 is invalid. The very same judgment

GADDE HARI PRASADA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec. 274 is invalid. The very same judgment

GADDE KISHNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec. 274 is invalid. The very same judgment

GRANDHI ARAVINDAM,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We find that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) being a latest judgment has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec