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)

69 of the Act by disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated

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.

69 of Rs.21,35,549/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 12. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

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.

69 of Rs.21,35,549/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 12. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

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.

69 of Rs.21,35,549/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 12. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 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 10/07/2025, 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 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

69,575/- made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.34,40,000 made by the Assessing officer towards disallowance of cost of improvement. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing

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:

69 of the Act by considering the Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares as unexplained. 4 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati 3. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing. Further, the assessee cross-objector has raised an additional ground which reads as under: “1. On the facts

SATYANARAYANA KODURU,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (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 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

69 of the Act in respect of the registration charges and stamp duty of Rs.4,48,700/-; (iii) addition under section 69A of the Act of unexplained cash deposits in bank account: Rs.32,30,000/-; (iv) addition of undisclosed salary received from NHAI: Rs.17,62,155/-; (v) 4 Satyanarayana Koduru vs. ITO addition of bank interest: Rs.1

HOTEL SELECTION GRAND,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio.\n6. The reopening of assessment is invalid as the copy of the approval\nof the specified authority is not furnished to the assessee till date though the\nsame is mandated by the CDT guidelines for issue of notices under section\n148.\n7. The reopening of assessment is invalid as the same

EROTHI LATHA RANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 184/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Latha Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7676H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 185/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Purnima Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7311H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which was not argued by the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”]. 10. Ground No. 3 relates to sustaining the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- under section 69

EROTHI PURNIMA RANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 184/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Latha Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7676H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 185/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Purnima Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7311H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which was not argued by the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”]. 10. Ground No. 3 relates to sustaining the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- under section 69

SURYASRI POULTRY COMPLEX,KAPAVARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD_1,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Suryasri Poultry Complex V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office D.No. 4-148, Rajanagaram Road Deepthi Towers Biccavolu Mandal, Kapavaram Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 East Godavari – 533343 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abgfs6509P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69 & 69A of the Act. In response to the notice along with the detailed questionnaire during the First Appellate Proceedings, assessee sought time to file the written submissions and relevant documents apart from partly providing the information regarding the changes in the name of the partnership firm on three occasions. Considering the reply filed by the assessee

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

VENKATA RAMANAIAH KOPPARAPU,SATTEPALLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.317/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Ramanaiah Kopparapu V. Income Tax Officer C.R. Buildings D.No. 18-9-10/2, Atchampeta Road Kannavarithota, Guntur – 522001 Near Sisuvihar, Sattenapalli-522403 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Dhmpk6477H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

69 of the Act. The case was reopened by issue of an order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act and notice under section 148A was issued on 24.03.2023. Considering the submissions made by the assessee, Ld. AO by relying on various judicial precedents stating that the assessee has not produced any documents substantiating the claim and therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA vs. KANDREGULA PEDDI RAJU, NARSAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.41/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Kandregula Peddi Raju Kakinada Narasapuram [ Pan : Andpr9130L] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

69 of the Act and interest income amounting to Rs.14,573/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. 3. Penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act were initiated for violation of provisions of 269SS and a penalty of Rs.60,25,000/- was levied, wherein, the assessee has accepted cash amounting to Rs.60,25,000/- as sale consideration against sale

ANANDA AQUA EXPORTS,GANAPAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

69\nof the IT Act.\n6. It is crucial and relevant to take note that the income escaping\nassessment is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50 lacs, therefore, it\nimpacts the determination of income escaping assessment and\ntheapplicability of statutory provisions such as Section 149(1)(b) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.\nPage

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

69 (SC), wherein the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed\nagainst the Order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 130\nTaxmann.com 492 (2021) holding that assessee was beneficiary of\naccommodation entries and basis for formation of such bellef were several\ninquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that there had been\nescapement of income of assessee from assessment