INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. AHMED EJAZ, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 462/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ahmed Ejaz, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aakpe6675R (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

90 lakhs (on-money) in purchase of immovable property. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing additional legal grounds of appeal at later stage of appeal proceedings without considering the fact that the assessee never questioned the legality of non-issuance of notice U/s. 153C of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings

NIMMAGADDA MURALIDHAR ,NIDADAVOLE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, TANUKU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Nimmagadda Muralidhar D.No. 3-123 Income Tax Office Samisragudem Village Aayakar Bhavan Near Zph High School Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Nidadavole Mandal Andhra Pradesh West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Anbpn7016M] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr. Ar

90,000 u/s 69A of the Act made by the assessing officer towards unexplained deposits in the bank account of the appellant. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. The primary ground raised by the assessee relates to the jurisdictional validity of notice issued under section

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

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

Bench: Us:

reassessment order under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 31.03.2015, inter alia, for the reason that the same had been passed in violation of the mandate of the “1st proviso” of Sec. 147 of the Act. Admittedly, as stated by the Ld. A.R and, rightly so, in a case where an assessment had earlier been made under Section

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

90,60,000/- as unexplained cash deposits under section 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SSNR PROJECTS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 29/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (Cross Objector / Respondent In (Appellant In Appeal) Appeal) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 28/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

90 of the Act with reference to the Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules wherein it was clear that the Form 67 shall be the return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before

CHODISETTY HEMASHANKAR,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Chodisetty Hemashankar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Akupc 0617 K Tuni. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 249(4) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Cit(a) ought to have held that the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act is invalid and ought to have quashed the consequent reassessment proceedings as void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and Ground No.3, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

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

90 of the Act with reference to the Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules wherein it was clear that the Form 67 shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the word