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) of the Act has chosen to drop the proceedings. The admission towards deposits in the bank accounts of the employees was very much there in the earlier assessment years as well. Apart from this, I have also found that the bank accounts were not in the name of the appellant and the account holders have owned

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has chosen to drop the proceedings. The admission towards deposits in the bank accounts of the employees was very much there in the earlier assessment years as well. Apart from this, I have also found that the bank accounts were not in the name of the appellant and the account holders have owned

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)

27,880. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the (Pusarla Subhash) course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed to have received agricultural income of Rs. 25,36,596/- on cultivation of palm fruit plantation and requested

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURYA MANGAPATHI RAJU PENMETSA,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blejcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Surya Mangapathi Raju Visakhapatnam. Penmetsa, D.No. 11-9-6/2, Flat No. 90, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ahapp 1548 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for an amount of C.O.No. 51/VIZ/2018 (P. Surya Mangapathi Raju) Rs.25,27,350/- by observing that “the undersigned is specified that the assessee has a taxable income of Rs. 1,15,43,620/- during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 and hence, is liable to pay penalty which shall

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

27 Taxman\n447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases:\ni.\nACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)\nii.\nCIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018]\n92taxmann.com 329 (Madras)\niii.\nMumbai ITAT in the case of GM Builders in\nITANo.2192/MUM/2024\niv.\nRaipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma V. PCIT

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)

27 Taxman 447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases: i. ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) ii. CIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018] 92taxmann.com 329 (Madras) iii. Mumbai ITAT in the case of G M Builders in ITANo.2192/MUM/2024 iv. Raipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma

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)

27 Taxman 447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases: i. ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) ii. CIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018] 92taxmann.com 329 (Madras) iii. Mumbai ITAT in the case of G M Builders in ITANo.2192/MUM/2024 iv. Raipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma

MALLA APPALARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the same is done on estimation basis. However, the total addition made of Rs. 39,58,613/- towards unexplained investment U/s. 69 attracts the provisions of section 27

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,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

27 Taxman\n447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases:\ni.\nACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)\nii.\nCIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018]\n92taxmann.com 329 (Madras)\niii.\nMumbai ITAT in the case of G M Builders in\nITANo.2192/MUM/2024\niv.\nRaipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma

INCOMETAX OFFICER, TANUKU vs. VENKATA SURYA DURGA RAJU KOPPISETTI, THIMMARAJUPALEM

Bench: us :

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 17.03.2022, had been vacated by him. 23. As we have set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) vacating the addition of Rs. 8,20,58,150/- (supra) made by the A.O. under Section 69A of the Act, and restored the matter to the file

INCOMETAX OFFICER, TANUKU vs. VENKATA SURYA DURGA RAJU KOPPISETTI, THIMMARAJUPALEM

Bench: us : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 17.03.2022, had been vacated by him. 23. As we have set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) vacating the addition of Rs. 8,20,58,150/- (supra) made by the A.O. under Section 69A of the Act, and restored the matter to the file

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MILK PRODUCERS EMPLOYEES EDUCATIONAL HEALTH MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.229/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Milk Producers & Central Circle-2 Employees Educational Visakhapatnam Health & Medical Welfare Trust, D.No.32-11-1 Krishi Building Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatm6689B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

penalty of Rs.1,27,92,593/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the income out of liquid booth does not 5 I.T.A. No.229/Viz/2020 A.Y 2015-16 M/s Milk Producers & Employees Educational Health and Medical Welfare Trust., Visakhapatnam constitute a charitable purpose as defined in section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

27,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the order stating that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not leviable, where search was not conducted and submitted that in the instant case no search was conducted and the assessment order was passed u/s

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

u/s 271D of the IT Act is barred\nby limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act.\nTherefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be\nquashed.\"\n8.\nAt the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"]\nsubmitted that the penalty order under section 271D of the Act is barred by\nlimitation

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

271(1)© of the Act in respect of this amount. 8. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the above sum of Rs. 4,21,233/- pertains financial year 2008-09 in respect of which the appellant did not claim any exemption and such the provisions of section 14A are not at all applicable in respect of this amount

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

271(1)© of the Act in respect of this amount. 8. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the above sum of Rs. 4,21,233/- pertains financial year 2008-09 in respect of which the appellant did not claim any exemption and such the provisions of section 14A are not at all applicable in respect of this amount