SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

business in manufacture and sale of pesticides. The assessee filed his return of income declaring losses of Rs.48,120/- and Rs.295/- respectively for the A.Ys 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. The assessments for the A.Ys 1984-85 and 1985-86 were completed u/s 143(3) and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’) vide

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

income while filing the return of\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\nincome in response to notice under section148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

income while filing the return of\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\nincome in response to notice under section148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

income while filing the return of\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\nincome in response to notice under section148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

income while filing the return of\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\nincome in response to notice under section148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

income while filing the return of\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\nincome in response to notice under section148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

business activities, and was also found to be involved in the bogus purchase and sale transactions, wherein only invoices were raised and there was no actual movement/delivery of goods. Also, the A.O. was informed that Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra) in his statement recorded during the course of the search proceedings, had admitted that he was only providing bogus sales

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

business activities, and was also found to be involved in the bogus purchase and sale transactions, wherein only invoices were raised and there was no actual movement/delivery of goods. Also, the A.O. was informed that Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra) in his statement recorded during the course of the search proceedings, had admitted that he was only providing bogus sales

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

business activities, and was also found to be involved in the bogus purchase and sale transactions, wherein only invoices were raised and there was no actual movement/delivery of goods. Also, the A.O. was informed that Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra) in his statement recorded during the course of the search proceedings, had admitted that he was only providing bogus sales

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

business activities, and was also found to be involved in the bogus purchase and sale transactions, wherein only invoices were raised and there was no actual movement/delivery of goods. Also, the A.O. was informed that Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra) in his statement recorded during the course of the search proceedings, had admitted that he was only providing bogus sales

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

business activities, and was also found to be involved in the bogus purchase and sale transactions, wherein only invoices were raised and there was no actual movement/delivery of goods. Also, the A.O. was informed that Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra) in his statement recorded during the course of the search proceedings, had admitted that he was only providing bogus sales

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

purchase of bogus plant and machinery was utilized but the same has been reintroduced into the business of the assessee company and hence the funds are utilized for the purpose of business and therefore, the interest payment cannot be disallowed. The Ld. AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to disallow

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

purchase of bogus plant and machinery was utilized but the same has been reintroduced into the business of the assessee company and hence the funds are utilized for the purpose of business and therefore, the interest payment cannot be disallowed. The Ld. AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to disallow

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

purchase of bogus plant and machinery was utilized but the same has been reintroduced into the business of the assessee company and hence the funds are utilized for the purpose of business and therefore, the interest payment cannot be disallowed. The Ld. AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to disallow

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

purchase of bogus plant and machinery was utilized but the same has been reintroduced into the business of the assessee company and hence the funds are utilized for the purpose of business and therefore, the interest payment cannot be disallowed. The Ld. AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to disallow

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

purchase of bogus plant and machinery was utilized but the same has been reintroduced into the business of the assessee company and hence the funds are utilized for the purpose of business and therefore, the interest payment cannot be disallowed. The Ld. AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to disallow

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

bogus purchases being the difference between purchases as per\nIncome Tax Return and the purchases in ERP database.\n4. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the\ntime of hearing.\"\n37. In Ground No. 1, Assessee has challenged the addition made by the Ld.AO\namounting to Rs.21,60,86,928/- ought to have been deleted

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

bogus purchases being the difference between purchases as per\nIncome Tax Return and the purchases in ERP database.\n4.\nAny other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the\ntime of hearing.\"\n37.\nIn Ground No. 1, Assessee has challenged the addition made by the Ld.AO\namounting to Rs.21,60,86,928/- ought to have been deleted