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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

54,030/-, viz. (i). purchase consideration vide a registered document No.2888/2017, dated 21/06/2017: Rs. 13,03,000/-; (ii). registration expenses: Rs. 98,030/-; and (iii). payment towards execution of construction works: Rs. 3,53,000/-. 8. Apart from that, the AO observed that the assessee during the subject year had sold two immovable properties (stock-in-trade), i.e., (i) Flat

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

54,030/-, viz. (i). purchase consideration vide a registered document No.2888/2017, dated 21/06/2017: Rs. 13,03,000/-; (ii). registration expenses: Rs. 98,030/-; and (iii). payment towards execution of construction works: Rs. 3,53,000/-. 8. Apart from that, the AO observed that the assessee during the subject year had sold two immovable properties (stock-in-trade), i.e., (i) Flat

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

54,030/-, viz. (i). purchase consideration vide a registered document No.2888/2017, dated 21/06/2017: Rs. 13,03,000/-; (ii). registration expenses: Rs. 98,030/-; and (iii). payment towards execution of construction works: Rs. 3,53,000/-. 8. Apart from that, the AO observed that the assessee during the subject year had sold two immovable properties (stock-in-trade), i.e., (i) Flat

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

54,868/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing

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

54,868/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing

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

54,868/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing

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

54,868/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing

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

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

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n27.03.2022.\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee being a company,\nwhich is engaged in trading of steel bars, TMT etc., filed its return of income\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.44,51,000/-.\nIt was noticed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n27.03.2022.\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee being a company,\nwhich is engaged in trading of steel bars, TMT etc., filed its return of income\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.44,51,000/-.\nIt was noticed

ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATINS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field