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]

68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credits. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.11,62,080 made by the assessing officer u/s 69C of the Act towards alleged unexplained payment of commission. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee society had filed before him additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) observed that as the assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee bank, thus

THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee society had filed before him additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) observed that as the assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee bank, thus

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

151(1) of the Act provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 of the Act by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded

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

151(1) of the Act provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 of the Act by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded

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

151(1) of the Act provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 of the Act by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded

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

151(1) of the Act provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 of the Act by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded

LOKANADHA RAO BATHINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [Pan :Apqpb9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

151 by the Higher Authority is without application of mind 6. The Ld.AO is not justified in treating the amount of Rs.1,17,25,976/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as income u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, after considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, C.O.s, filed by the assessee are dismissed

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as\nincome u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order\nof the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction\nu/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A).\n3. On appeal, after considering

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

68,000/- of the Act. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee provided translated copies of sale deeds and stated that assessee has purchased agriculture lands from the proceeds obtained from sale of agriculture lands. Further, assessee has submitted his reply

KAKRLA SURYA GANGADHAR TILAK,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

68,500/-. The immovable property was purchased by the co-owners for a consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- plus stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.5,14,795/- and registered vide document No.2910 of 2005 dated 24.06.2005. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) dated 13.03.2014 was issued by the Assessing Officer

KAKARLA GUNA VIDYA SARASWATHI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

68,500/-. The immovable property was purchased by the co-owners for a consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- plus stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.5,14,795/- and registered vide document No.2910 of 2005 dated 24.06.2005. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) dated 13.03.2014 was issued by the Assessing Officer

MYNENI VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

151 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR submitted that even in the case of the assessments completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the AO is bound to issue notice u/s 153A, once search is conducted and to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year following with such six assessment years. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

151 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR submitted that even in the case of the assessments completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the AO is bound to issue notice u/s 153A, once search is conducted and to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year following with such six assessment years. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

151 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR submitted that even in the case of the assessments completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the AO is bound to issue notice u/s 153A, once search is conducted and to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year following with such six assessment years. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

151 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR submitted that even in the case of the assessments completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the AO is bound to issue notice u/s 153A, once search is conducted and to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year following with such six assessment years. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

151 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR submitted that even in the case of the assessments completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the AO is bound to issue notice u/s 153A, once search is conducted and to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year following with such six assessment years. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

151 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR submitted that even in the case of the assessments completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the AO is bound to issue notice u/s 153A, once search is conducted and to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year following with such six assessment years. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued