NANDIGAM VEERABRAHMAM,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Us:

4,38,65,617/- determining the same at Rs. 35,09,250/-. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order 5 N. Veerabrahmam passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 31.01.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 39,39,700/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the assessee

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi\n[hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)"] for the A.Y. 2018-19.\n2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal\nchallenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), whereby the assessment

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 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 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

250 of IT Act dated 06-08-2025, confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO') uls. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the IT Act dt.08-03-2025, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. 2. The Leamed CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer (JAO') u/s

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

U/S 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act,\nby the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Vijayawada, dt\n28.12.2016, is erroneous, bad in law, and liable to be quashed.\n2.\nThat the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without\ngranting sufficient and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant,\nthereby violating the principles

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

reassessment proceedings\ninitiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the\nnotice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are\n\n12\nITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025\nShaik Saida vs. ITO\nquashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section\n147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the\nassessee is allowed.\n14. Further

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 :

147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act, dt. 10.01.2024, as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide orders passed u/s 250 of the IT Act, dt. 01.07.2025, are contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant

GO IRON MARKETING,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), VISHAKAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.483/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Go Iron Marketing, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(3), Pan: Aanfg6474D Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 01/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Go Iron Marketing Vs. Ito

250 of IT Act dated 26-07-2025, partly confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.ws of the IT Act dt. 01-02-2024, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer

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:

250 of the IT Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial cash transaction/receipt of income, viz., (i) interest income from HDFC Bank Ltd: Rs.67,659/-; (ii) cash deposits in bank account with Kotak Mahindra

SIVADURGAVARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT CIT, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. ITA No. 368/Viz./2025 Assessee’s appeal – Quantum appeal ITAs No.367 & 368/Viz/2025 (A.Ys. 2016-17) 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds

SIVA DURGA VARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. ITA No. 368/Viz./2025 Assessee’s appeal – Quantum appeal ITAs No.367 & 368/Viz/2025 (A.Ys. 2016-17) 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds

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

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

U/S 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act,\nby the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Vijayawada, dt\n28.12.2016, is erroneous, bad in law, and liable to be quashed.\n2.\nThat the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without\ngranting sufficient and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant,\nthereby violating the principles

ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the 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 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 19.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct either on facts

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

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

4\nI.T.A.No.427/VIZ/2025\nMahalakshmi Sanagala --\n2. That the impugned appellate order has been passed in violation of\nthe provisions of section 250(6) of the IT Act, 1961, as the Ld. CIT(A)\nfailed to dispose of the appeal on merits and did not address the specific\ncontentions. Hence, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

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.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

250 of the Act is barred by limitation. 3. The decision of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is outside the scope of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA vs. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMI, , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the assesee’s Cross Objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.509/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Ivaturi Mallikharjuan Rao, Ward-2(2), L/R & Son Of Late Smt. Vijayawada. Ivaturi Mahalakshmamma, Vijayawada. Pan: Aatpi 0474 P (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) Co. No.18/Viz/2019 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.509/Viz/2018) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay : 2006-07) Sri Ivaturi Mallikharjuan Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, L/R & Son Of Late Smt. Ivaturi Ward-2(2), Mahalakshmamma, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aatpi 0474 P (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 08/07/2022 Pronouncement

147 of the Act and statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee through her Authorized Representative (AR) filed written submissions before the AO. Considering the submissions made by the assessee’s AR, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 63,92,929/-. Aggrieved by the order

MUDUNURI VENKATA SUBBARAJU,WEST GODAVARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.284/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mudunuri Venkata Subbaraju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 5-205/2, Dommeru Aayakar Bhavan, 35-29-2 Near Reliance Tower Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Gowthaminagar S.O. Andhra Pradesh Kovvur, West Godavari – 534350 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cupps3676D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

250 of the I.T. Act dt: 04- 03-2025, is not in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2. The learned CIT (A) upheld the assessment order where in the addition was made by Assessing officer in summary manner while so learned CIT(A)ignored when it was explained with cogent reasons that cash

CHANDANAM SANGAIH & SON,NARSARAOPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARSARAOPETA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 567/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Chandanam Sangaih & Son V. Income Tax Officer – Ward - 1 7-159/47, Innaiah Gari Building Income Tax Office, 12-9-22/A Vinukonda Road Prakashnagar, Narsaraopeta Narasaraopeta, Guntur – 522601 Guntur – 522601 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aalfc8018M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short I.T.A. No. 567/VIZ/2025 Chandanam Sangaih & Son ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order passed under section 147 r.w.s