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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 271(1)(c) of the Act under which the penalty Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.352/VIZ/2025 Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty was proposed. However, the Ld. AO found the objections as not tenable and levied penalty of Rs.80,34,539/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. On being aggrieved by the penalty levied

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

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, and upheld by the Learned CIT(A) is bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice issued under the said section is vague and fails to specify whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3

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:

3) dated 28.12.2019 is sustainable in the eyes of law? 13. As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O., while framing the assessment, had not recorded his satisfaction regarding the initiation of the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal, i.e., the sustainability of the penalty imposed under

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

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty is leviable and thus, the Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs. 72,31,470/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded and raised the demand accordingly vide order dated 16/03/2022 passed U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

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

U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and thereafter, levied penalty /s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 24,18,000/- with the approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section

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

u/s 153C\nNot Applicable since assessee's case is\nnot a case of notice issued u/s148\n11.\nShe argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories\nand hence even on merits penalty cannot be levied in the instant case.\n12.\nPer contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short\n"Ld.DR"] submitted that as per section

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

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.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)

271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

GOVERNAMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s. 154. However, the Ld. ITO (TDS), Ward-1, Visakhapatnam responded to the assessee’s letter stating that the waive-off of the late filing fee is out of his scope. In my view the 6 I.T.A. No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam assessee ought to have filed a petition seeking rectification of the order passed

GOVERNAMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s. 154. However, the Ld. ITO (TDS), Ward-1, Visakhapatnam responded to the assessee’s letter stating that the waive-off of the late filing fee is out of his scope. In my view the 6 I.T.A. No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam assessee ought to have filed a petition seeking rectification of the order passed

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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

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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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

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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, 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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

penalty proceedings U/s. 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