JASTI VENKATAPATHI RAO,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.365/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jasti Venkatapathi Rao V. Acit – Circle -2(1) Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor Flat No. 23 Venkata Ganapathy Residency Standard House 6Th Line, Brodipet Beside Sbi, Nagarampalem Guntur - 522002 Guntur-522004 [Pan:Abupj3793Q] (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

3 The Learned AO has erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act as applicable.” 6. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.365/VIZ/2024 Jasti Venkatapathi Rao 7. Ground No. 2 is with respect to sustaining the addition of Rs.2,67,27,507/- under section 68

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

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee company assailed the impugned addition made by the A.O. on the merits of the case. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations

VENKATA NARASIMHAM THOTA,KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal filed by 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.207/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Venkata Narasimham Thota, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Veeravaram, Kirlampudi. Ward-2, Pan: Achpt2895H Kakinada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, Ca (Hybrid) 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:

234B and 234C totalling to Rs.6,59,933/- is not correct in the facts and circumstances of appellant's case. 5. For the above grounds and any other ground or grounds, that may be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellant humbly prays to allow the appeal with consequent re- lief in favour of appellant

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the same may kindly be deleted. 10. The appellant seeks permission to add any other ground of appeal or amend or alter the aforesaid ground of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.10

KAMMELA SRINIVASARA RAO,TENALI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

68,004/-, the 4 Ld. AO treated it as unexplained money and brought to tax under the provisions of section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and raised a demand of Rs.57,71,647/-. Thus, the Ld. AO also initiated the proceedings U/s. 271AAC of the Act and passed the assessment order U/s. 144, dated 31/12/2019. Aggrieved

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)

234B and 234C and the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 3. The above grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or any of the above grounds appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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

JIYYANA VENKATRAYUDU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

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.138/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jiyyana Venkatrayudu, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Kakinada. Income Tax, Pan: Axppj 2351 K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and levying tax at higher

BRANDIX APPARAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.627/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Brandix Apparel India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Apsez, Pudimadaka Road, Circle-5(1), Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530011. Pan: Aaccb 6569 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kriplani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

68,47,180 Brandix Apparel Ltd Liability no longer required 9,91,13,198 3. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, Hyderabad [TPO] after obtaining necessary approval from the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam for determining the Arm’s Length Price [ALP] U/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld TPO rejected

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

RAMA RAO KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rama Rao Kotha Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-99, Near Indira Hospital Ward-2 Gokarakondavari Street Kakinada Korukonda East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bpipk0075H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68,800/- in his bank accounts. A series of notices were issued to the assessee calling for sources for cash deposits and to produce books of account to verify the sources for cash deposits, but the assessee did not comply with any of these notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount as business income and considering profit margin

GVK POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

68,138/- towards sponsorship expenses and genuineness of expenses was not disputed by the A.O. As per the details furnished by the assessee the sponsorship fee was paid to Financial Times and for conducting the Second Financial Times -Yes Bank International Banking Summit held in Mumbai and Young Indian National Summit held in Delhi and submitted in the events that