INCOME TAX OFFICER, TENALI vs. SURYAPRAKASARAO KANAPARTHY, BETHAPUDI, REPALLE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations, while for the appeal filed by the revenue having been rendered as academic in nature, is ...

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.239/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Suryaprakasarao Tenali. Kanaparthy, Bethapudi, Repalle, Bapatla. Pan: Dmqpk7509P (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A is not based on adequate evidence and hence requires to be deleted.” 5. In the result appeal for Assessment Order 2018-19 is hereby allowed. 10. The revenue being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross Objector. 11. Sri G.V.N. Hari

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble**

69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash withdrawals of Rs.1,98,79,153 from Axis Bank account and alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs.1,72,900 in the same bank account.* - *4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing."* - **8.** Further, assessee has raised following additional legal ground: - *"1. The notice

MARIA ROJALU POTHAKAMURI,NARSARAOPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARSARAOPETA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has raised various grounds challenging the assessment order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio. 4. The notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2022 issued by the lncome-tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopeta is invalid for the reason that: 4 Maria Rojalu Pothakamuri i. The notice has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as mandated by the e-assessment

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 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 (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

section 69A of the Act: Rs. 28,82,633/-; (ii) addition of unexplained payment of credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of equity shares: Rs.1,68,552/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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:

69A of the Act of Rs. 15,11,000/-, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 16,73,660/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Shri C. Subrahmanyam

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 :

reassessment proceedings and the order passed thereunder are vold ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,16,000/- made by the AO, which represents a portion of the stamp duty paid by the assessee. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of income tax challans paid on behalf of the clients of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs13,400 made by the assessing officer under the head income from House Property'. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of income tax challans paid on behalf of the clients of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs13,400 made by the assessing officer under the head income from House Property'. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of income tax challans paid on behalf of the clients of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs13,400 made by the assessing officer under the head income from House Property'. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of income tax challans paid on behalf of the clients of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs13,400 made by the assessing officer under the head income from House Property'. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of income tax challans paid on behalf of the clients of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs13,400 made by the assessing officer under the head income from House Property'. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

69A. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024 Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu 4. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in taxing the income at 30% as against 20% provided for under section 112 in the case of long term capital gains. 5. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in levying interest under section 234A

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble**

reassessment of total incomeincluding all deductions under 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax act, 1961.* - *4. The learned AO erred in assessing the interest income of Rs.7,04,473 as 'Incomefrom Other Sources' without appreciating that the same was earned in the courseof business and is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).* - *5. The appellant craves

CHODAY JANAKI RAMAYYA CHOWDARY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings as void ab inito in as much as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as against the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 4. Without prejudice to Ground no 2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.39,37,000 made u/s 69A

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

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that

VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

69A is in applicable to the case of assessee. 11. NO NEXUS WITH INFORMATION: Ld AO had erred in formation of Belief was not based on relevant and cogent material, hence entire assessment fails and make it infructuous. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tadikonda Ramulu v. AO - 1990 186 ITR 148 (AP) 12. Any other ground that

BHARGAV RAM MUNAGAPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.78,51,300/-. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has raised various grounds challenging the assessment order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal