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

DY. 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. 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, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing to the ERP data base and thereby disallowed a sum of\nRs.20,49,768/-.\n10. On being aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO, assessee\npreferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before