JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-10, adding Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-. The assessee, believing the tax liability was settled due to a subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act, failed to inform the CIT(A) about this development.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

CHODAY JANAKI RAMAYYA CHOWDARY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

3 I.T.A.No.623/VIZ/2025 Choday Janaki Ramayya Chowdary the impugned assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 19.02.2024. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the AO as per “first proviso” to section 149(1) of the Act (post amended) as was applicable at the time of issuing the notice under

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

154 of the Act on the same issue, it cannot be made. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the notice dated 20.01.2022 issued for rectification of mistake and the order under Section l48A(d) of the Act passed on 22.04.2024. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India

HOTEL SELECTION GRAND,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

154 of the Act on the\nsame issue, it cannot be made. The attention of this Court has been drawn\nto the notice dated 20.01.2022 issued for rectification of mistake and the\norder under Section 148A(d) of the Act passed on 22.04.2024. Reliance has\nbeen placed on the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in\nUnion of India

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

154 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as invalid and ought to have quashed the consequent reassessment proceedings as void -ab- initio. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no.2 to 4, the learned Commissioner of Income

ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

154 of the Act on the same issue, it cannot be made. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the notice dated 20.01.2022 issued for rectification of mistake and the order under Section l48A(d) of the Act passed on 22.04.2024. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

154 ITR 148 (SC). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside. 12. Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) referred to page 16 of the paper book-1 wherein in the balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 the assessee has a gross block of fixed assets amounting

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

154 ITR 148 (SC). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside. 12. Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) referred to page 16 of the paper book-1 wherein in the balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 the assessee has a gross block of fixed assets amounting

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

154 ITR 148 (SC). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside. 12. Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) referred to page 16 of the paper book-1 wherein in the balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 the assessee has a gross block of fixed assets amounting

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

154 ITR 148 (SC). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside. 12. Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) referred to page 16 of the paper book-1 wherein in the balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 the assessee has a gross block of fixed assets amounting

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

154 ITR 148 (SC). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside. 12. Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) referred to page 16 of the paper book-1 wherein in the balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 the assessee has a gross block of fixed assets amounting

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

3 to section 12A(2) of the Act and hence, the assessment based on a notice which is not valid is void- ab-initio. 8. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Ld.CIT

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

3 to section 12A(2) of the Act and hence, the assessment based on a notice which is not valid is void- ab-initio. 8. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Ld.CIT

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

3 to section 12A(2) of the Act and hence, the assessment based on a notice which is not valid is void- ab-initio. 8. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Ld.CIT

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

3 to section 12A(2) of the Act and hence, the assessment based on a notice which is not valid is void- ab-initio. 8. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Ld.CIT

VISWAMANAVA SAMAIKYATA SAMSAT,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/S. Viswamanava Samikyata Vs. Income Tax Officer Samsat, Guntur. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaatv 1597 P Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

reassessment proceedings as void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,20,54,192/- made by the AO by disallowing of the exemption claimed U/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act by the appellant in respect of the corpus donations. 5. Without prejudice to Ground