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

section 271AAB of the Act, the penalty is leviable only on undisclosed income. In the instant case, the A.O. has failed to establish the undisclosed income, hence, we hold that there is no case for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act, accordingly, we cancel the penalty and set aside the order of the lower authorities. ITA 132/Vizag/2017

MOTHUKURI SOMABRAHMAM,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

section 271AAB of the Act, the penalty is leviable only on undisclosed income. In the instant case, the A.O. has failed to establish the undisclosed income, hence, we hold that there is no case for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act, accordingly, we cancel the penalty and set aside the order of the lower authorities. ITA 132/Vizag/2017

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

250 of the Act dated 08/03/2024 is not in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the actions of the AO in levying the penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act despite there being no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars the essential

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

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 to taxable capital gains. Reference in this context may kindly be made to CIT Vs, R.Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 250 (Del) and CIT Vs. R. Dalmia (Decd

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

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 to taxable capital gains. Reference in this context may kindly be made to CIT Vs, R.Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 250 (Del) and CIT Vs. R. Dalmia (Decd

SARADAMBIKA POWER PLANT (P) LTD, SRIKAKULAM,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsaradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd., Plot No.15, Konna Street, Radha Krishna Nagar Colony, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh - 532001 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajcs5970R V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order dated 23.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

250 of the Act dated 21/09/2022 passed by the CIT(A) was served on the same date as displayed in income tax portal. The appeal was to be filed on / before 20/11/2022 but the same is filed on 6/12/2022 thus causing a delay of 16 days. The reason for the delay is that managing partner of the assessee firm

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

250 of the Act dated 21/09/2022 passed by the CIT(A) was served on the same date as displayed in income tax portal. The appeal was to be filed on / before 20/11/2022 but the same is filed on 6/12/2022 thus causing a delay of 16 days. The reason for the delay is that managing partner of the assessee firm

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

250 of the Act dated 21/09/2022 passed by the CIT(A) was served on the same date as displayed in income tax portal. The appeal was to be filed on / before 20/11/2022 but the same is filed on 6/12/2022 thus causing a delay of 16 days. The reason for the delay is that managing partner of the assessee firm

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

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

271(1 )(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of sec 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty u section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

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

271(1 )(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of sec 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty u section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

DUBASI BABAJI RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

250. 2. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271. The sub section 7 of sec.271 clearly carved out a sunset

DUBASI BABAJI RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

250. 2. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271. The sub section 7 of sec.271 clearly carved out a sunset

MADHU DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

250 of the IT Act dt. 30.07.2024 is\nnot in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) NFAC in a summary and casual manner confirmed\nthe penalty under section 271D of the IT Act of Rs.46,54,622/- without\nproper consideration of the assessee's submissions.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) NFAC

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

250 of the IT Act dt. 30.07.2024 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC in a summary and casual manner confirmed the penalty under section 271D of the IT Act of Rs.46,54,622/- without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC

CH RAMA RAO ,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.344 & 345/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 2016-17) Ch Rama Rao V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(4) C.R. Building 4-99, Ramavarappadu Vijayawada- 520002 Vijayawada – 521108 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfc0545L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dated 02/07/2024, is not in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, in a summary and casual manner, confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,07,318/- under section 271

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 50C of the Act are attracted in the case of the assessee and hence the share of the assessee and her husband is treated at Rs. 88,24,680/- which includes 3 flats received by the assessee. Thereby, the Ld. AO has considered the assessee’s share to be half of the total share

VIJAY SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), claiming that the 3 I.T.A. No.181/Viz/2022, A.Y.2013-14 Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Penamaluru action of the AO is not supported by tax laws and that it is in violation of it’s constitutional rights. The Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices and served on the assessee, however

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI SAMBA SIVARAO M,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2014-15. (M. Samba Sivarao) 2. Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The grievance of the Revenue Department is that the ld. Commissioner while cancelling penalty, ignored the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh