ASHOK RUDRARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

39,061/-, i.e., substantially less than the threshold amount of Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/07/2022, was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act (as was applicable w.e.f 01/04/2021), as the said notice was issued beyond three years from

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

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)

39,903/- based on disallowance of certain expenses. A Search and Survey action was conducted on a syndicate of persons led by Shri Naresh Jain on 19.03.2019 by DDIT(Inv), Unit-7(1) & 7(3) Mumbai. Shri Naresh Jain and his associates were involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of Long term Capital Gains / Losses in several scrips

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:

2,41,200/- after raising a claim of exempt income of Rs. 72,77,892/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the A.O received information from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit- 7(1) & 7(3), Mumbai, that search and survey proceedings conducted on 5 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati certain accommodation entry providers had revealed that the assessee

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

reassessment proceedings as void ab inito in as much as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as against the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 4. Without prejudice to Ground no 2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.39,37,000 made

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)

2 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. viii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. MDRL Hotels (P.) Ltd. - (2024)166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. ix. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar - (2024) 163taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. x. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Serajuddin& Co. - (2023) 150taxmann.com 146 (Orissa

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)

2 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. viii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. MDRL Hotels (P.) Ltd. - (2024)166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. ix. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar - (2024) 163taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. x. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Serajuddin& Co. - (2023) 150taxmann.com 146 (Orissa

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)

2 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. viii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. MDRL Hotels (P.) Ltd. - (2024)166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. ix. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar - (2024) 163taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. x. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Serajuddin& Co. - (2023) 150taxmann.com 146 (Orissa

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 :

reassessment framed on such an incorrect foundation is illegal, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant, being a temple governed by the Endowments Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23BBA) 3 Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Mahakshetram Temple

BHARGAV RAM MUNAGAPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

39,400/- in HDFC Bank Limited, in his bank accounts during the\nperiod relevant to A.Y.2015-16. Thereafter, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter\nin short \"Ld. AO\"] issued show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act.\nIn response, assessee failed to furnish any information. Accordingly, the case\nwas reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

reassessment proceedings including the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has not decided the legal ground of the assessee on the ground that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted on substantive ground on merits. However, the fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

reassessment proceedings including the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has not decided the legal ground of the assessee on the ground that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted on substantive ground on merits. However, the fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

reassessment proceedings including the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has not decided the legal ground of the assessee on the ground that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted on substantive ground on merits. However, the fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

reassessment proceedings including the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has not decided the legal ground of the assessee on the ground that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted on substantive ground on merits. However, the fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject