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:

Section 147 2 N. Veerabrahmam r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 31.01.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-10 and made an addition of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal. A delay of 403 days occurred in filing the present appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the AO had vacated the impugned addition of Rs.1,16,58,384/- by an order under section

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 were without jurisdiction as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period. For AY 2018-19, the appeals related to quantum additions and penalty were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "250

SIVADURGAVARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT CIT, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. ITA No. 368/Viz./2025 Assessee’s appeal – Quantum appeal ITAs No.367 & 368/Viz/2025 (A.Ys. 2016-17) 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds

SIVA DURGA VARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. ITA No. 368/Viz./2025 Assessee’s appeal – Quantum appeal ITAs No.367 & 368/Viz/2025 (A.Ys. 2016-17) 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds

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

section 54F of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi, assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA vs. CHAGANTIPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NOH957, CHAGANTIPADU VILLAGE,

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi\n[hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)"] for the A.Y. 2018-19.\n2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal\nchallenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), whereby the assessment

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)

250. b. Maheswari Coal Beneficiation and Infrastructures Private Limited v. DCIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 842. c. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Subash Dabas in ITA No. 243/2023 8. He therefore pleaded that since the procedure laid down under section 153D was not adhered to by JCIT who has granted mechanical approval

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)

250. b. Maheswari Coal Beneficiation and Infrastructures Private Limited v. DCIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 842. c. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Subash Dabas in ITA No. 243/2023 8. He therefore pleaded that since the procedure laid down under section 153D was not adhered to by JCIT who has granted mechanical approval

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)

250. b. Maheswari Coal Beneficiation and Infrastructures Private Limited v. DCIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 842. c. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Subash Dabas in ITA No. 243/2023 8. He therefore pleaded that since the procedure laid down under section 153D was not adhered to by JCIT who has granted mechanical approval

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

250 of IT Act dated 06-08-2025, confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO') uls. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the IT Act dt.08-03-2025, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. 2. The Leamed CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer

VIKRAM BRAHMENDRA SATYAJIT MULPURI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.534/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulpuri, Ward-3(1), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Aonpm1893G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

250 of the IT Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial cash transaction/receipt of income, viz., (i) interest income from HDFC Bank Ltd: Rs.67,659/-; (ii) cash deposits in bank account with Kotak Mahindra

SATYANARAYANA KODURU,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

250 of the IT Act, dt. 01.07.2025, are contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the notices issued u/ss 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 dt. 06.03.2023, 24.03.2023, and 28.03.2023 respectively, are contrary to the scheme of reassessment

GO IRON MARKETING,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), VISHAKAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.483/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Go Iron Marketing, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(3), Pan: Aanfg6474D Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 01/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Go Iron Marketing Vs. Ito

250 of IT Act dated 26-07-2025, partly confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.ws of the IT Act dt. 01-02-2024, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer

MEKA VIRAJ GOPAL APPARAO,NUZVID vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

250 of the IT Act is bad in law as well as facts. 9 ITA.No.232/VIZ./2025 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to pay advance tax u/s.208 of the I.T. Act is vague and incorrect

MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 250(6) of the IT Act, 1961, as the Ld. CIT(A)\nfailed to dispose of the appeal on merits and did not address the specific\ncontentions. Hence, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to grant reasonable and adequate\nopportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DWARAMPUDI KRSS SUBBIREDDY L/R OF DWARAMPUDI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

250 of the Act, dated.30.12.2024 in the name of the deceased assessee. 11. Before proceeding any further, we find that the primary issue which requires to be addressed is as to whether or not the assessment framed by the A.O. u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019, in the name of the assessee (since deceased) i.e., subsequent to his death