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.

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: Rs. 98,030/-; and (iii). payment towards execution of construction works: Rs. 3,53,000/-. 8. Apart from that, the AO observed

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.

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: Rs. 98,030/-; and (iii). payment towards execution of construction works: Rs. 3,53,000/-. 8. Apart from that, the AO observed

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings, order rejecting the assessee’s objection against assumption of jurisdiction for reopening and also reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) were to be quashed. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad (2013) 156 Taxmann.com 19 (Punjab & Haryana) had observed that where the notice

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

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as void ab initio. We find from the records that the assessee has failed to respond to the notices and the Ld. AO has rightly after seeking permission from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur found that the income has escaped assessment and hence notice U/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,, WRANGAL,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,, ,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,000 S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad D. Sampath Oriental Bank of Commerce, 10812010003930 83,500 Kukatpally, Hyderabad I.T.A. Nos.407-429/VIZ/2017 (Sri Dharipalli Sampath) D. Sampath Axis Bank, Ramnagar, 369010100219211 2,47,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, 006001527017 38,000 Visakhapatnam D. Sampath Axis Bank, Narasaraopet 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. Sampath HDFC Bank, Dwarakanagar, 00501000158277 46,000 Visakhapatnam Total

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

reassessment proceedings as it transpires from the record that the liability of service tax is not allowable u/s436of the Act and on this tangible material available on record only, the AO formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, e. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that in the case of assessee income chargeable

DASARI SAI ANNAPURNA L/R OF LATE DASARI GOPI KRISHNA REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dasari Sai Annapurna Vs. Assistant Commissioner L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Of Income Tax, Krishna Reddy, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aeipd0990C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 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 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The 2 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy Vs. Acit

45 r.w.s 2(47)(v) of the Act 4 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy vs. ACIT was though statutorily obligated to disclose “capital gains” on te aforesaid transaction during the subject year after taking into consideration the cost of acquisition of land vis-à-vis sale value of 8 flats that were to be received

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:

45,72,200/- and Rs. 32,02,000/- in the State Bank of India during the year under consideration. However, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the Asst. Year 2015-16. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened and the order U/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 18/04/2022 and notice

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:

45,72,200/- and Rs. 32,02,000/- in the State Bank of India during the year under consideration. However, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the Asst. Year 2015-16. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened and the order U/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 18/04/2022 and notice

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,286/- for objectives credited to the ‘Income and Expenditure Account’ and Rs.92,81,499/- to ‘capital fund’ forming part of corpus. The said sum of Rs.92,81,499/- received by the assessee for acquiring the land , construction of building at Tuni for procurement of land and development of conference and training centre. The fact that the donations were received

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,286/- for objectives credited to the ‘Income and Expenditure Account’ and Rs.92,81,499/- to ‘capital fund’ forming part of corpus. The said sum of Rs.92,81,499/- received by the assessee for acquiring the land , construction of building at Tuni for procurement of land and development of conference and training centre. The fact that the donations were received

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

45,286/- for objectives credited to the ‘Income and Expenditure Account’ and Rs.92,81,499/- to ‘capital fund’ forming part of corpus. The said sum of Rs.92,81,499/- received by the assessee for acquiring the land , construction of building at Tuni for procurement of land and development of conference and training centre. The fact that the donations were received

KASAPU RAMESH BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

45,130/- in respect of bank deposits and credit card payments respectively. 4. The Assessee challenged the impugned order before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the additions made by the AO (in short „AO‟), vide orders passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of IT Act, that