VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order and the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The reasons for reopening the assessment were mentioned in page No. 19 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and from which it is found that assessee was carrying the commercial activities like sale of plots, constructed houses, sale of plants, saplings etc. which were mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order

BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carry forward the unabsorbed long term capital loss on sale of listed equity shares on which STT is paid on the fact and circumstance of the case. 7. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee has raised

BTHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carry forward the unabsorbed long term capital loss on sale of listed equity shares on which STT is paid on the fact and circumstance of the case. 7. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee has raised

BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carry forward the unabsorbed long term capital loss on sale of listed equity shares on which STT is paid on the fact and circumstance of the case. 7. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee has raised

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble**

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

Loss account” of the assessee company for the year under consideration. Further, the assessee company had in its “Notes on accounts” forming part of its financial statements for the year under consideration, made a full 30 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited disclosure of the sale of the subject land, i.e., 12.90 acres at Village: Chinakakani, which reads

NADIMPALLY VENKATA SANKAR RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

carrying on business as recovery agent for banks and financial corporations under the name Malvika Marketing & Financial Services. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was completed in the case of the assessee on 16.04.2010 on total income of Rs.6,28,330/-. Subsequently, the assessment, so completed was reopened by issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

NANDIGAM VEERABRAHMAM,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.07.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore, the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

carried on 03.02.2008 in the group cases. It is also not disputed by income of appellant was mentioned. The AR has raised a doubt as to how the Assessing Officer was satisfied on the said material in order to invoke provisions u/s.153C of the Act. I have perused the material on record. It contains transactions relating to construction of residential

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

carried on 03.02.2008 in the group cases. It is also not disputed by income of appellant was mentioned. The AR has raised a doubt as to how the Assessing Officer was satisfied on the said material in order to invoke provisions u/s.153C of the Act. I have perused the material on record. It contains transactions relating to construction of residential