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

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

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)

250 made by the assessing officer u/s 69 of the Act by disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued

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

SRI KOTI LINGA HARI HARA MAHAKSHETRAM TEMPLE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WD, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahakshetram Temple, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam. Rajahmundry. Pan: Acgfs3064C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Cr Hemanth Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, without adjudicating the appeal on merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice and depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to be heard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the Order of the Assessing officer bringing to tax the excess

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nwhich require the Commissioner (Appeals) to state the points for\ndetermination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision.\nPage. No 2\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan Rao Valluru\n4.\nThat the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing\nOfficer had already passed

ANANDA AQUA EXPORTS,GANAPAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARM

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

250 of the IT Act, 1961, be quashed and the\naddition made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.\nThe solitary issue emanating from the above grounds is with respect to\naddition made under section 69A of the Act for Rs.27,40,000/-. In addition to\nthe above grounds / issues, the assessee raised two additional grounds as\nfollows

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

6. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 3. Succinctly Stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

6. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 3. Succinctly Stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried

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

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

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

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

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

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