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

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio.\n6. The reopening of assessment is invalid as the copy of the approval\nof the specified authority is not furnished to the assessee till date though the\nsame is mandated by the CDT guidelines for issue of notices under section\n148.\n7. The reopening of assessment is invalid as the same

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

234A for the period it is not possible for the assessee to file a valid return of income. 6. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to; alter; amend; modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Assessee also raised

CHAPARALA BABU RAO, REP. OF S. SAILAJA NAIDU,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

234A and Sec.234B are not applicable in the appellant's case and the facts of the said case are distinguishable and the case law cited by the appellant are only to be accepted and the interests may be cancelled. Hence, the appellant prays for relief. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal

CHAPARALA BABU RAO, REP. OF K. VEMLATA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

234A and Sec.234B are not applicable in the appellant's case and the facts of the said case are distinguishable and the case law cited by the appellant are only to be accepted and the interests may be cancelled. Hence, the appellant prays for relief. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal

CHAPARALA BABU RAO, REP. SRI G. HARI PRASAD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

234A and Sec.234B are not applicable in the appellant's case and the facts of the said case are distinguishable and the case law cited by the appellant are only to be accepted and the interests may be cancelled. Hence, the appellant prays for relief. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal

LALITHA D.V.RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

V.UJAVALA RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

V.GAUTAM RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

R.SMITHA SHARMA REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

V.PRATIMA RAO, REPRESENTED BY DR. P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

R.MANI KUMAR REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234A, 234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee

MARIA ROJALU POTHAKAMURI,NARSARAOPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARSARAOPETA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has raised various grounds challenging the assessment order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio. 4. The notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2022 issued by the lncome-tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopeta is invalid for the reason that: 4 Maria Rojalu Pothakamuri i. The notice has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as mandated by the e-assessment

NIMMANA NARASIMHARAO,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

Bench: Us:

234A(1) of the Act, it transpires that though the said statutory provision contemplates that the delay involved in the filing of a “return of income” in response to the notice under Section 142(1), i.e. 13 Nimmana Narasimharao furnished after the period allowed in the notice is to be subjected to levy of interest, but the same nowhere provides

SRI KSHEERA RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PALAKOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.199/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Swamy Temple, (Exemptions), Palakol. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aakas5615E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/12/2019 For A.Y. 2017-18. 2 I Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Vs. Ito (Exemptions)

234A(1) of the Act, it transpires that though the said statutory provision contemplates that the delay involved in the 9 I Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple vs. ITO (Exemptions) filing of a “return of income” in response to the notice under Section 142(1), i.e., furnished after the lapse of the time period allowed in the notice

USHA RANI CHEBROLU,GUNTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.532/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Usha Rani Chebrolu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abmpc8555B Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio. 4. The notice U/s. 148 dated 8/4/2022 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur is invalid for the reason that i. the notice has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless Assessment centre as mandated by the e-assessment of income escaping assessment

KAKRLA SURYA GANGADHAR TILAK,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

234A and 234B is levied is not correct. 8. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no proper notice served

KAKARLA GUNA VIDYA SARASWATHI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

234A and 234B is levied is not correct. 8. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no proper notice served

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

234A and Rs. 52,25,779/- u/s. 234B of the Act. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. 5. Grounds No.1 and 9 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 6. In Ground No.2 the assessee raised objection for the issuance of notice U/s. 148 of the Act and pleaded that the reassessment proceedings