DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

transfer of 1,06,900 shares by the assessee at Rs. 657 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,33,300. 4. On the other hand, the seized scribbling contained entries which the department construed as cash payments to certain persons, including the assessee. The noting in the seized scribblings mentioned, viz. “18/08/2015 – 100 cash Appa

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the explanation of the assessee, assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining taxable long term capital gain at Rs. 1,31,92,445/-. (Appana Hari Naga Venkat Rao) While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer adopted the deemed consideration under section

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

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.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

148 ITD 260) and argued that the issue of right shares and its allotment does not amount to issue of fresh shares at FMV as the value of the shares and the assets are already embedded in the value of original shares. The assessee also relied on the decision of M/s Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs.CIT, wherein Hon’ble supreme court

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

2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that there is any error int he order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the provisions of sec.263

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

2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that there is any error int he order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the provisions of sec.263

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

2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that there is any error int he order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the provisions of sec.263

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

2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that there is any error int he order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the provisions of sec.263

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

2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that there is any error int he order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the provisions of sec.263

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

2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that there is any error int he order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the provisions of sec.263

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

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

148, declaring total income of Rs.11,530/-. During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has sold certain properties in nine documents for a consideration of Rs.36,26,500/-, with a market value of Rs.40,01,000/- and claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

price as per sale deed as income from STCG without considering the corroborative evidence of Rs.25,03,000. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the order under appeal is bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as the disallowances made by La. A.O. were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PEDDAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

price not less than Rs. 3.50 per unit, being the rate charged by the Board from its industrial consumers. Thus, under the given circumstances, it would appropriate to hold that the consideration recorded by the assessee for transfer of power for captive consumption, which is at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per unit, corresponds to the market value of such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PEDDAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

price not less than Rs. 3.50 per unit, being the rate charged by the Board from its industrial consumers. Thus, under the given circumstances, it would appropriate to hold that the consideration recorded by the assessee for transfer of power for captive consumption, which is at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per unit, corresponds to the market value of such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PEDDAPURAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

price not less than Rs. 3.50 per unit, being the rate charged by the Board from its industrial consumers. Thus, under the given circumstances, it would appropriate to hold that the consideration recorded by the assessee for transfer of power for captive consumption, which is at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per unit, corresponds to the market value of such

KATRAGADDA MURALIKRISHNA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Katragadda Muralikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.38-37-24, Bhaskar Gardens Ward-4(1) Marripalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Akipk7339L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

148, 144 along with 142(1) were issued to the assessee. A statement u/s 131 of the Act was recorded, during which the assessee confirmed that the assessee executed the sale deed along with 8 others and received his share of Rs.74,71,100/- through cheques from M/s Indus Infra Promoters and 3 ITA No.123 & 124/Viz/2017, A.Y.2011-12 Katragadda Murali Krishna

K. SANTHA KUMARI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Katragadda Muralikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.38-37-24, Bhaskar Gardens Ward-4(1) Marripalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Akipk7339L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

148, 144 along with 142(1) were issued to the assessee. A statement u/s 131 of the Act was recorded, during which the assessee confirmed that the assessee executed the sale deed along with 8 others and received his share of Rs.74,71,100/- through cheques from M/s Indus Infra Promoters and 3 ITA No.123 & 124/Viz/2017, A.Y.2011-12 Katragadda Murali Krishna

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the business of providing vessel and shore tank cleaning and collection and transportation of drilling waste and treatment of waste and SOBM/drill cuttings so collected, offers its services to the oil and gas drilling companies to meet their environmental requirements and helps

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the business of providing vessel and shore tank cleaning and collection and transportation of drilling waste and treatment of waste and SOBM/drill cuttings so collected, offers its services to the oil and gas drilling companies to meet their environmental requirements and helps