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

Bench: Us:

v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 and the Full Bench has observed thus (page 19) : "The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-section (1) of section 143 or sub-section (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

47 of APB). Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 01.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the prescribed authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

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.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

47,000) for payment of purchase consideration for the shares acquired under preferential allotment. This amount and other funds available with the assessee are utilised for acquisition of the shares. Further, assessee submitted that assessee paid Rs.1,91,98,000/- to the Company Steel Exchange India Ltd towards sale consideration for the purchase of 6,62,000 shares allotted

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:

v). that during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) summons were issued to its directors, viz. Ms. Shweta Manoj Sharma and Shari. Bhavesh Ramesh Vora, for their examination on oath, but neither of them had appeared, which fortified the fact that the said company was not doing any genuine business activity

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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:

v). that during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) summons were issued to its directors, viz. Ms. Shweta Manoj Sharma and Shari. Bhavesh Ramesh Vora, for their examination on oath, but neither of them had appeared, which fortified the fact that the said company was not doing any genuine business activity

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:

v). that during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) summons were issued to its directors, viz. Ms. Shweta Manoj Sharma and Shari. Bhavesh Ramesh Vora, for their examination on oath, but neither of them had appeared, which fortified the fact that the said company was not doing any genuine business activity

ACIT, 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:

v). that during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) summons were issued to its directors, viz. Ms. Shweta Manoj Sharma and Shari. Bhavesh Ramesh Vora, for their examination on oath, but neither of them had appeared, which fortified the fact that the said company was not doing any genuine business activity

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:

v). that during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) summons were issued to its directors, viz. Ms. Shweta Manoj Sharma and Shari. Bhavesh Ramesh Vora, for their examination on oath, but neither of them had appeared, which fortified the fact that the said company was not doing any genuine business activity

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

v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 47 taxmann.com 121 (Andhra Pradesh) wherein it was held that a notice U/s. 148 should mention about the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts during the assessment proceedings however, this is not mentioned in the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act in the case

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

v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 47 taxmann.com 121 (Andhra Pradesh) wherein it was held that a notice U/s. 148 should mention about the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts during the assessment proceedings however, this is not mentioned in the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act in the case

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

v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 47 taxmann.com 121 (Andhra Pradesh) wherein it was held that a notice U/s. 148 should mention about the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts during the assessment proceedings however, this is not mentioned in the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act in the case

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

v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 47 taxmann.com 121 (Andhra Pradesh) wherein it was held that a notice U/s. 148 should mention about the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts during the assessment proceedings however, this is not mentioned in the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act in the case

DASARI SAI ANNAPURNA L/R OF LATE DASARI GOPI KRISHNA REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dasari Sai Annapurna Vs. Assistant Commissioner L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Of Income Tax, Krishna Reddy, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aeipd0990C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, 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 28/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The 2 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy Vs. Acit

2(47)(v) of the Act 4 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy vs. ACIT was though statutorily obligated to disclose “capital gains” on te aforesaid transaction during the subject year after taking into consideration the cost of acquisition of land vis-à-vis sale value of 8 flats that were to be received

SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

147 of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the following reasons. The Ld. CIT observed that the possession for the Flat No. 202 was during February, 2011 whereas the assessee sold the property in 12/12/2012 which is before the completion of three years from February, 2011 and thereby concluded that the assessee

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

147 of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the following reasons. The Ld. CIT observed that the possession for the Flat No. 202 was during February, 2011 whereas the assessee sold the property in 12/12/2012 which is before the completion of three years from February, 2011 and thereby concluded that the assessee

NARASIMHA RAO JAMMIGUMPULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

47,70,000/- in the SB account of Andhra Bank. Accordingly, on the basis of the information available, notice U/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 21/03/2022 with the prior approval of the competent authority. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 of the Act dated 07/04/2022 was issued electronically however, there was no response from the assessee. Subsequently, notice U/s

AKUNURI SAI AVINASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2023 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Akunuri Sai Avinash, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Rep. By Gpa Holder Dr. Akunuri Income Tax, Sai Babu, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 12/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

V)/VSP/CG-449/2022-23/1712, dated 04/11/2022. Further, the assessee also objected to the taxation of the capital gains in the AY 2016-17 whereas it was contended that the sale document was executed on 03/05/2015 and hence the capital gains should be subjected to tax in the AY 2015-16. The Ld. DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee and thereby