GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

41,000/-; (ii). registration expenses: Rs. 1,00,830/-; and (iii). payment towards the execution of construction works: Rs. 3,45,000/-; AND (B). Flat No. 402, Roshini Residency, Bakkannapalem, Visakhapatnam for a purchase consideration of RS. 17,54,030/-, viz. (i). purchase consideration vide a registered document No.2888/2017, dated 21/06/2017: Rs. 13,03,000/-; (ii). registration expenses

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

41,000/-; (ii). registration expenses: Rs. 1,00,830/-; and (iii). payment towards the execution of construction works: Rs. 3,45,000/-; AND (B). Flat No. 402, Roshini Residency, Bakkannapalem, Visakhapatnam for a purchase consideration of RS. 17,54,030/-, viz. (i). purchase consideration vide a registered document No.2888/2017, dated 21/06/2017: Rs. 13,03,000/-; (ii). registration expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. L V BEACH CITY PROPERTY PROMOTERS, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 V. L.V. Beach City Property Promoters 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 3/Viz/2024 [आयकअपीलसं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)] L.V. Beach City Property Promoters V. Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri M.V. Prasad, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

b) any books of account or documents, sewed or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] [and that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

b) provides that income or part of it referred to Clause (a) should have escaped the assessment for such year or years. Clause (c) provides that the search or requisition should have been initiated on or after 01.04.2017. Explanation (1) explains the relevant assessment year. Explanation (2) provides that the 'asset' in the fourth proviso shall be inclusive of immovable

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:

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, being

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

41,050/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 05.03.2015, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.4,38,01,590/-. Subsequently, search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 25.10.2016 and also at the residence of it’s Director

VENKATA LAKSHMI PADMAVATHI UPPALAPU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA

1. Notice Under Section 148 Served After 1st April 2021-New Law\nApplicable The Income Tax Department issued a notice under Section 148 on 30th\nMarch 2021,but the same was served only after 1st April 2021—acritical date\nwhen the Finance Act, 2021 amended the reassessment procedure. As per law,\nservice of notice is the determining factor for applicability

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI C.D.S.PRAKASA RAO, L/H. C.D.V. SUBBA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

41 (1) but not in respect of other unconfirmed creditors of Rs. 32,97,507/-. This was a factual lapse, which was pointed out in the audit objection and then examined by the authorities. This factual lapse was found to be correct and, therefore, reassessment proceedings were initiated. Initiation of the reassessment proceedings has been held to be proper

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

41,68,623 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity of issue of notice u/s 147 stating that the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 due to change of opinion, thus argued that reopening of assessment is invalid, erroneous and contradictory to the facts. The Ld.CIT

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

41,68,623 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity of issue of notice u/s 147 stating that the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 due to change of opinion, thus argued that reopening of assessment is invalid, erroneous and contradictory to the facts. The Ld.CIT

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

41,68,623 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity of issue of notice u/s 147 stating that the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 due to change of opinion, thus argued that reopening of assessment is invalid, erroneous and contradictory to the facts. The Ld.CIT

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

41,68,623 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity of issue of notice u/s 147 stating that the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 due to change of opinion, thus argued that reopening of assessment is invalid, erroneous and contradictory to the facts. The Ld.CIT

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blethe Acit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Guntur. D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 47/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 10/Viz/2019) (Asst. Year : 2006-07) M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(1), D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji Guntur. House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 03/05/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Raothis Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur, Dated 29/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 Ita No.10 /Viz/2019 & C.O.No. 47/Viz/2019 (M/S. Lakshmi Constrcutions)

41,943 VAT Tax refund Rs. 1,87,829 As the above sums totaling to Rs. 5,09,752/- have escaped assessment, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.5,09,752/- has escaped assessment and this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 147 and bring the escaped income to tax with

ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleandhra Pradesh Capital Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Region Development Authority Vijayawada. (Formerly Vgtm Urban Development Authority), Uda Complex, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aaalv 0067 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the escapement of income after four years, the Assessing Officer has to establish that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary to complete the assessment. In this case, the Assessing Officer has raised an objection in respect of sinking (A.P. Capital Region Development Authority) funds

NAVYA HASINI AND HARSHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,BHIMAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] [and that

NAVYA HASINI AND HARSHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS, ,BHIMAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] [and that

NAVYA HASINI AND HARSHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,BHIMAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] [and that

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

41,32,499/- U/s. 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

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power