DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

1 & 41 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.\n13. Ground nos. 2, 3 & 4 is directed against the upholding of the average prices\nby the Ld. CIT(A) @Rs.3.83 per Egg by allowing further deduction of 5% on\naccount of breakage eggs and 10% on account of poor-quality eggs.\n14. On this issue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

148 on 18.12.2017 is not erroneous or prejudcial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessee filed his explanations and replies before ADIT and the AO at length, at the time of proceedings, The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in reponse to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

148 on 18.12.2017 is not erroneous or prejudcial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessee filed his explanations and replies before ADIT and the AO at length, at the time of proceedings, The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in reponse to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

148 on 18.12.2017 is not erroneous or prejudcial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessee filed his explanations and replies before ADIT and the AO at length, at the time of proceedings, The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in reponse to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

148 on 18.12.2017 is not erroneous or prejudcial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessee filed his explanations and replies before ADIT and the AO at length, at the time of proceedings, The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in reponse to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

148 on 18.12.2017 is not erroneous or prejudcial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessee filed his explanations and replies before ADIT and the AO at length, at the time of proceedings, The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in reponse to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

148 on 18.12.2017 is not erroneous or prejudcial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessee filed his explanations and replies before ADIT and the AO at length, at the time of proceedings, The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in reponse to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order

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

1 & 41 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.\n13. Ground nos. 2, 3 & 4 is directed against the upholding of the average prices\nby the Ld. CIT(A) @Rs.3.83 per Egg by allowing further deduction of 5% on\naccount of breakage eggs and 10% on account of poor-quality eggs.\n14. On this issue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

148 r.w.s. 147 on 22.11.2018, determining the total income at Rs.13,45,910/- under the head “income from long term capital gains” arising from the sale of immovable property. 3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A), after careful consideration of the facts of the case and the 3 I.T.A. No.78/Viz/2021, A.Y.2011-12 Yadla Srinivasa

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High

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

1 & 41 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.\n13. Ground nos. 2, 3 & 4 is directed against the upholding of the average prices\nby the Ld. CIT(A) @Rs.3.83 per Egg by allowing further deduction of 5% on\naccount of breakage eggs and 10% on account of poor-quality eggs.\n14. On this issue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter

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

1 & 41 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.\n13.\nGround nos. 2, 3 & 4 is directed against the upholding of the average prices\nby the Ld. CIT(A) @Rs.3.83 per Egg by allowing further deduction of 5% on\naccount of breakage eggs and 10% on account of poor-quality eggs.\n14.\nOn this issue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

148 dated 03/11/2014 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1) is vague and therefore invalid. Consequently, the entire proceedings in pursuance of such an invalid notice are invalid including the assessment order passed. 4. The fair market value adopted by the AO as on 01/054/1981 is not correct instead the Ld. AO ought to have adopted the value

REDDI PAIDITALLI NAIDU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts. 2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not reversing the action of the Ld. A.O. in treating the difference between Market price