ASHOK RUDRARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

69A (Additional ground) 9. The notice issued under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 is invalid as the same is issued by the Jurisdictional AO as against Faceless AO as per the scheme framed under section 151A and notified on 29.03.2022 10. The notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 is invalid as the same is issued without DIN No. The appellant

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 as the assessee had not filed its return of income. The AO proceeded to determine the income by treating cash deposits and withdrawals as unexplained money under section 69A

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

reassessment proceedings under section 147, issuing a notice under section 148, which was later deemed a show-cause notice under section 148A(b). The assessee filed a return, but the AO added Rs. 1,12,13,500 as unexplained money under section 69A

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

reassessment proceedings as per the substituted\nprovisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021,\nsubject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and the defences, which\nmay be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147\nto 151 of the IT Act and which may be available under

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

reassessment proceedings as per the substituted\nprovisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021,\nsubject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and the defences, which\nmay be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147\nto 151 of the IT Act and which may be available under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 were without jurisdiction. The notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was found to be invalid and barred by limitation, as it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed period. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "139", "147", "148", "148A", "149(1)(b)", "69A

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA vs. CHAGANTIPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NOH957, CHAGANTIPADU VILLAGE,

69A in these circumstances is\nlegally unsustainable.\n3. The LD. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessing officer erred\nin not appreciating that the assessee society is rightly entitled for claim of\nits interest income as exempt under chapter VIA of the IT Act.\"\nPage No. 3\nI.T.A. No. 641/VIZ/2025\nC.O. No. 42/VIZ/2025\nChagantipadu Primary Agri Coop Credit

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

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

69A of the Act for Rs.27,40,000/-. In addition to\nthe above grounds / issues, the assessee raised two additional grounds as\nfollows:\n\"1. The notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dt. 26.07.2022 is\nbarred by limitation in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the IT\nAct, 1961 read with the proviso

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

NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

reassessment proceedings\nare void-ab-initio.\n4.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nheld that the assessing officer is not justified in considering the amount paid\nfor purchase of fish as unexplained and making addition of Rs.2,29,06,560\nu/s 69A of the Act.\n5.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have

MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 after noticing a cash deposit of Rs. 51,00,000/-. The assessee eventually filed a return declaring income of Rs. 5,93,450/-.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the 41-day delay in filing the appeal due to a dengue fever episode suffered by the assessee. The matter was remanded back

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

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 were without jurisdiction as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period. For AY 2018-19, the appeals related to quantum additions and penalty were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149", "250", "271AAC1", "69A