THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. PEDARLA SRINIVASA MURTHY,, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

short term capital gains and long term capital gains. However the AO in same should be held as business activity. The Ld. CIT(A) given the copy of the remand report to the assessee and called for his counter comments. In reply to the remand report, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. contending that the assessee

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. PEDARLA SRINIVASA MURTHY,, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

short term capital gains and long term capital gains. However the AO in same should be held as business activity. The Ld. CIT(A) given the copy of the remand report to the assessee and called for his counter comments. In reply to the remand report, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. contending that the assessee

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)

short term capital gains of Rs.44,71,100/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.AR contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was no passing of consideration as the assessee did not realize the cheques given by the vendee, M/s Indus Infra Promoters and Builders. The Ld.AR also

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)

short term capital gains of Rs.44,71,100/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.AR contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was no passing of consideration as the assessee did not realize the cheques given by the vendee, M/s Indus Infra Promoters and Builders. The Ld.AR also

SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

price and easy saleability. Even then, the assessee had kept the plots for more than 5 years and no prudent business person will keep asset idle without optimising the turnover. Merely because the plots were sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the sale of plots was taxable as profit arising from the adventure

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

price and easy saleability. Even then, the assessee had kept the plots for more than 5 years and no prudent business person will keep asset idle without optimising the turnover. Merely because the plots were sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the sale of plots was taxable as profit arising from the adventure

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

short questions involved are (i) whether the sale of plots by the assessee is business income or ‘capital gains’ (ii) (ii) whether the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F if construction of house is commenced prior to the transfer of the asset. With regard to the first issue, whether the assessee’s income required to be taxed

MDR CRANES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

term capital gains of Rs.88,51,721/-. Subsequently, the case was selected\nfor scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act\nwere issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices,\nassessee-representative appeared from time to time and furnished the\ninformation sought for. After examining the information furnished by the\nassessee

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

term capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal

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)

short “Act”). The assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2018, since the assessee has not disclosed the capital gains arising from the sale of the said property by filing a return of income. The assessee did not file his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148. The AO, therefore, completed the assessment

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

term capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

term provisions 7,21,519 9,20,36,183 C NET VALUE (A-B) 5,39,64,483 D Share Capital Subscribed and paid up share 3,85,05,600 capital Reserve for allotment of share application money 21,62,000 4,06,67,000 E No. of shares allotted to Y.V. Choudary 4,25,000 F Fair Value

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

gains. The AO contended that there was no return or income received from the subsidiary companies. The same cannot be 31 I.T.A. No.553/Viz/2018 M/s GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Kadiyam reason for disallowance of interest as the return and the profit of the company depends on lot of other factors. The advances or investments were made out of business compulsions

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)

short computed by an amount of Rs.4,74,57,000/- [Rs.316.38 (Rs.416.38 - Rs.100) x 1,50,000] which is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called as ‘Act’). The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed that the assessee himself had received the entire enhanced equity of the company under the rights issue

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

short term interest rate as the trade receivable were in foreign currency. 2.12. Without prejudice to the above, the foreign exchange gain of Rs. 11,24,33,853/- which has a direct nexus with the period of realization of the receivables from the AE should be netted off against the notional interest charged on delayed receipt of trade receivables

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

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

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

transfer of thermal heat energy from steam to the juices. The dispute between the revenue and the assessee arose whether the receipts from generation and supply of steam was eligible for relief under section 801A and according to the revenue, the steam was not the power, which was eligible for tax holiday under section 801A. 7.11The word power

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

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

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

transfer of thermal heat energy from steam to the juices. The dispute between the revenue and the assessee arose whether the receipts from generation and supply of steam was eligible for relief under section 801A and according to the revenue, the steam was not the power, which was eligible for tax holiday under section 801A. 7.11The word power

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

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

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

transfer of thermal heat energy from steam to the juices. The dispute between the revenue and the assessee arose whether the receipts from generation and supply of steam was eligible for relief under section 801A and according to the revenue, the steam was not the power, which was eligible for tax holiday under section 801A. 7.11The word power