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

195 (SC) N.Κ.\nProteins Ltd. (earlier N.K.Industries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No.769 of\n2017. The Hon'ble High Court held that "The Tribunal in the case of Vijay\nProteins Ltd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the\nAO to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

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

195 (SC) N.Κ.\nProteins Ltd. (earlier N.K.Industries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No.769 of\n2017. The Hon'ble High Court held that "The Tribunal in the case of Vijay\nProteins Ltd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the\nAO to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

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

195 (SC) N.Κ.\nProteins Ltd. (earlier N.K.Industries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No.769 of\n2017. The Hon'ble High Court held that "The Tribunal in the case of Vijay\nProteins Ltd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the\nAO to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

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

195 (SC) N.Κ.\nProteins Ltd. (earlier N.K.Industries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No.769 of\n2017. The Hon'ble High Court held that "The Tribunal in the case of Vijay\nProteins Ltd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the\nAO to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

195 (SC) N.K.Proteins Ltd\n(earlier N.K.lndustries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No. 769 of 2017. The\nHon'ble High Court held that 'The Tribunal in the case Of Vijay Proteins\nLtd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the AO\nto restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

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

195 (SC) N.K.\nProteins Ltd. (earlier N.K.Industries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No.769 of\n2017. The Hon'ble High Court held that "The Tribunal in the case of Vijay\nProteins Ltd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the\nAO to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the\npurchases

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

195 (SC) N.Κ.\nProteins Ltd. (earlier N.K.Industries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No.769 of\n2017. The Hon'ble High Court held that "The Tribunal in the case of Vijay\nProteins Ltd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the\nAO to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 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 (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26/03/2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna vs. ITO The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. Tax effect relating to each Ground of Appeal

SIVA RAMA KRISHNA RAO NUTAKKI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,93,262/- after claiming brokerage, indexed cost of acquisition and the cost of improvements on the said sale of immovable property and filed the return of income on 29/02/2020 admitting income of Rs. 6,72,20,240/- which includes interest income of Rs. 3,26,988/-. The return was processed by the CPC on 26/5/2020 and the assessee paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

195 (SC) N.K.Proteins Ltd\n(earlier N.K.lndustries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No. 769 of 2017. The\nHon'ble High Court held that 'The Tribunal in the case Of Vijay Proteins\nLtd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the AO\nto restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

195 (SC) N.K.Proteins Ltd\n(earlier N.K.lndustries Ltd) Vs Dy.CIT vide SLP (C) No. 769 of 2017. The\nHon'ble High Court held that 'The Tribunal in the case Of Vijay Proteins\nLtd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the AO\nto restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating

M/S GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO. KG,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTL TXN CIRCLE, VIZAG, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Vs. M/S. Grob – Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg Acit Industriestrasse 4, 87719 Mindelheim International Taxation Circle Income Tax Office Germany, Pincode - 87719 Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road [Pan:Aaifg4270G] Visakhapatnam - 530016 करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Nikhil Ajit Mutha, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

195 of the Act. The Ld. AO observed that the firm is a pass-through entity with M/s. GROB Verwaltungs GmbH as one of the partners being an Austrian resident as disclosed from the details of the ITR filed by the assessee. It was also submitted before the Ld. AO that Mr. Florian Grob a German resident partner holds

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on the payments made by him to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed her income tax return for the A.Y.2010-11 on 17.05.2013 admitting sale consideration of Rs.39,69,000/-, towards her share on account of the above transfer of property and claimed exemption u/s 54F for the entire long term

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: 26 “5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: 26 “5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: 26 “5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: 26 “5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: 26 “5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under