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

65,13,440/- (20% of the subject purchases of Rs. 3,25,67,200/-). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who, after deliberating on the facts involved in the case 4 Go Iron Marketing vs. ITO before him, though principally concurred with the AO, but scaled down the estimation of the profit

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

reassessment proceedings,\nand the claim was new and not previouslydeclared, and but in\npresent case ie.., gowripatnam primary agricultural cooperative\ncredit society limited, the return was filed in response to a valid\nnoticeu/s 148, which reopens the assessment and allows a\nreassessment of total incomeincluding all deductions under\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

reassessment proceedings,\nand the claim was new and not previouslydeclared, and but in\npresent case ie.., gowripatnam primary agricultural cooperative\ncredit society limited, the return was filed in response to a valid\nnoticeu/s 148, which reopens the assessment and allows a\nreassessment of total incomeincluding all deductions under\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

reassessment proceedings,\nand the claim was new and not previouslydeclared, and but in\npresent case ie.., gowripatnam primary agricultural cooperative\ncredit society limited, the return was filed in response to a valid\nPage. No 4\nI.T.A.Nos.432, 433 & 434/VIZ/2025\nGowripatnam Primary Agricultural Cooperative\nCredit Society Limited --\nnoticeu/s 148, which reopens the assessment and allows a\nreassessment of total incomeincluding

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

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. MOTHER THERESSA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHAITANYANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

65,07,33,988/- which is more than 85% of total receipts of Rs.73,04,73,622/- i.e. Rs.62,09,02,578/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee income at Rs. NIL while finalising the assessment. However, Assessing Officer considered that the assessee has mis-reported the claim of expenditure on account of depreciation and therefore initiated penalty proceedings

MOTHER THERESSA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,AMALAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

65,07,33,988/- which is more than 85% of total receipts of Rs.73,04,73,622/- i.e. Rs.62,09,02,578/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee income at Rs. NIL while finalising the assessment. However, Assessing Officer considered that the assessee has mis-reported the claim of expenditure on account of depreciation and therefore initiated penalty proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

65,150/- vide Document No. 2683/2013, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31/03/2021 was issued to the assessee. CO. No. 08/Viz/2024 ITO vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the source of the investment made towards the purchase

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

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

65 years and it was indeed a shocking incident for me. I am still not able to recover from the mental depression caused on account of death of my mother. 3. As such, I could not notice the order of the Ld. CIT(a) sent to my e-mail. I came to know about the appeal order only

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

65,678 Pig Iron 3.467 23,000 79,741 Low Grade Sponge 220.042 20,000 44,00,840 Slag 26.697.75 70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

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

65,678 Pig Iron 3.467 23,000 79,741 Low Grade Sponge 220.042 20,000 44,00,840 Slag 26.697.75 70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

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

65,678 Pig Iron 3.467 23,000 79,741 Low Grade Sponge 220.042 20,000 44,00,840 Slag 26.697.75 70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

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

65,678 Pig Iron 3.467 23,000 79,741 Low Grade Sponge 220.042 20,000 44,00,840 Slag 26.697.75 70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

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

65,678 Pig Iron 3.467 23,000 79,741 Low Grade Sponge 220.042 20,000 44,00,840 Slag 26.697.75 70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

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

65,00,000/-. It was observed that as per SRO, the market value of the property is Rs. 1,70,31,960/- and since the Chivatam Village is under the Municipal Limits of Tanuku Municipality, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore

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 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