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)

58,733/- on sale of listed equity shares. 6. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in upholding that the appellant is not eligible to carry forward the unabsorbed long term capital loss on sale of listed equity shares on which STT is paid on the fact and circumstance of the case

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)

58,733/- on sale of listed equity shares. 6. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in upholding that the appellant is not eligible to carry forward the unabsorbed long term capital loss on sale of listed equity shares on which STT is paid on the fact and circumstance of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

58,927/. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A), after considering the contentions advanced by the assessee, observed that the order passed by the AO under section 148A(d) of the Act was devoid of merit, and thus, it was not a fit case for issuing notice under section

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:

58,000/-, but not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. Thereafter, 3 Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Mulpuri vs. ITO the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 23/03/2024. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, declaring an income

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (surpa), we are of the considered opinion that the reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (surpa), we are of the considered opinion that the reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (surpa), we are of the considered opinion that the reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 149(1)(b) are not applicable. Judicially following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (surpa), we are of the considered opinion that the reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

58,02,237/-. With\nrespect to the disallowances of Rs. 49,53,669/- claimed as deduction under\nsection 80P of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO.\n\n7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act and treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested 5 I.T.A. No.130/Viz/2024 to 134/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14

ANDHARA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act and treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested 5 I.T.A. No.130/Viz/2024 to 134/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act and treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested 5 I.T.A. No.130/Viz/2024 to 134/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act and treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested 5 I.T.A. No.130/Viz/2024 to 134/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act and treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested 5 I.T.A. No.130/Viz/2024 to 134/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14

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

4\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan Rao Valluru --\nby the assessee as non-est/invalid. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO had\nthereafter issued to the assessee a notice under section 148 of the Act dated\n28.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of\nincome declaring LTCG

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SSNR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.461/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""ाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of : 31/01/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

58,265/- made by the Ld. AO. With respect to the issue of claim of Foreign Tax Credit (“FTC”), the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC allowed the grounds raised by the assessee and thus, partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

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

4\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan Rao Valluru\nby the assessee as non-est/invalid. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO had\nthereafter issued to the assessee a notice under section 148 of the Act dated\n28.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of\nincome declaring LTCG

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee company assailed the impugned addition made by the A.O. on the merits of the case. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

58,832 28. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,20,05,735/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO has also made addition on account of loss on sale of fixed assets for Rs. 2,50,000/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before