ASHA SANGHAVI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Asha Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-22-12 Ward-2 Nandepu Heights Rajamahendravaram T.Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Awfps2816R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

250 gms gold ornaments received on 25.04.2010 from inheritance from Mrs Sumathi Sanghavi, Mother-in-Law of the assessee. a) Mrs Sumathi Sanghavi died on 09.03.2010 and as per her oral will, it got the possession of the gold ornaments on 24th April 2010. b) Mrs. Sumathi Sanghavi inherited the gold from her lineal ascendants. 3) I have sold away

KRISHNA PRABHAS AGRO OILS PRIVATE LIMITED,MAREDUBAKA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAKINADA

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') dated 04-09-2025, confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer ('AO') under section . 147 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act dt.27-03-2022, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the subject re-opening of subject assessment under

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

250(6) of the IT Act which obligates the CIT (A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.11,00,000/-u/s 69A of the IT Act and which is contrary to the provisions of law. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time

ARAVIND REDDY DEVAGIRI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(2), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aravind Reddy Devagiri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 2(2) 14-19-35, 1St Lane Vijayapuri Guntur Andhra Pradesh Jkc College Road, Guntur 522006 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Auepd7820R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

250 of the IT act dt: 03/05/2024 is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 1,94,99,178/-, relating to investment made in two partnership firms, ignoring the sources explained. In any case invoking sec. 68

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4 I.T.A. No.280/Viz/2023, A.Y.2015-16 Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 2. Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal that reads as under: 3 Ganesh Kumar Paidi “The Finance Act 2017 introduced an amendment to Section 115BBE of the IT Act, which set a higher tax rate

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/- as the income of the assessee and the benefit of telescoping shall not be granted to the assessee. Therefore we are not inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the Revenue. 14. Grounds No.1 and 11 are general in nature and therefore they need

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/- as the income of the assessee and the benefit of telescoping shall not be granted to the assessee. Therefore we are not inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the Revenue. 14. Grounds No.1 and 11 are general in nature and therefore they need

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/- as the income of the assessee and the benefit of telescoping shall not be granted to the assessee. Therefore we are not inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the Revenue. 14. Grounds No.1 and 11 are general in nature and therefore they need

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/- as the income of the assessee and the benefit of telescoping shall not be granted to the assessee. Therefore we are not inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the Revenue. 14. Grounds No.1 and 11 are general in nature and therefore they need

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the IT Act does not fall and shall not be liable for tax under section 115BBE of the IT Act rather it should be considered under normal provisions of IT Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax while passing the order failed to dispose of assessee case on merits and this is in contravention

KANISHKA F&B,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from the affidavit are extracted herein below:

section 250(6) of the Act which obligates the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,86,95,750/- U/s. 68

VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

250(6) individually thoughthey are mutually exclusive, has rejected summarily and hence the impugnedorder is liable to be quashed. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.251/VIZ/2025 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4. Time barred show cause notices: The Ld AO is not justified in issuing show cause notices u/s 148A & 148 etcafter the same is time barred, being issued on 07.04.2022, hence the same

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:

250 of I.T. Act passed by CIT(A)is not correct both on the facts and in the law applicable to the facts of the appellant's case and hence liable to be set aside. 3. In the facts and circumstances of appellants case, the CIT(A)is erred in upholding the addition of Rs.20,28,000/- made by Learned

MUTHAVARAPU SRINIVASA BABU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

250/- by making addition of Rs.1,05,00,000/- being unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act. 5. On being aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO since assessee has not responded to any of the notice / opportunities

SEERAM PADMANABHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,ELURU vs. ITO, WARD-1,, ELURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Seeram Padmanabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.6A-2-6, Near Gandhi Statue Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aaqcs9501F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act. Similar additions of Rs.16,46,000/- and Rs.4,7,000/- were also made under unsecured loans and credit balances in debtors account which was also adjusted against the sales. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order