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:

cash and make deposit into its bank account and later the same will be routed through banking channels to the entity for which it intends to provide bogus vouchers or accommodation entry for providing the alleged loan. 8. Further, this case falls in exceptional category as per Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT in F.No. 279/Misc- 142/2007-

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:

cash and make deposit into its bank account and later the same will be routed through banking channels to the entity for which it intends to provide bogus vouchers or accommodation entry for providing the alleged loan. 8. Further, this case falls in exceptional category as per Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT in F.No. 279/Misc- 142/2007-

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:

cash and make deposit into its bank account and later the same will be routed through banking channels to the entity for which it intends to provide bogus vouchers or accommodation entry for providing the alleged loan. 8. Further, this case falls in exceptional category as per Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT in F.No. 279/Misc- 142/2007-

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

depositions recorded at the time of\nsearch proceedings found that the assessee involved in the practice of production\nsuppression regularly and manipulates the suppression production of eggs on\ndaily basis.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has made a claim of\nunaccounted feed material purchase, expenditure being alleged to be incurred\nPage No. 6\nITA

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

depositions recorded at the time of\nsearch proceedings found that the assessee involved in the practice of production\nsuppression regularly and manipulates the suppression production of eggs on\ndaily basis.\n8.\nFurther, Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has made a claim of\nunaccounted feed material purchase, expenditure being alleged to be incurred\nPage No. 6\nITA

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

depositions recorded at the time of\nsearch proceedings found that the assessee involved in the practice of production\nsuppression regularly and manipulates the suppression production of eggs on\ndaily basis.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has made a claim of\nunaccounted feed material purchase, expenditure being alleged to be incurred\nPage No. 6\nITA

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

depositions recorded at the time of\nsearch proceedings found that the assessee involved in the practice of production\nsuppression regularly and manipulates the suppression production of eggs on\ndaily basis.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has made a claim of\nunaccounted feed material purchase, expenditure being alleged to be incurred\nPage No. 6\nITA

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

cash deposits in bank account amounting to\nRs. 63,00,000/-\n7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short\n\"CIT(A)\") erred in confirming the. disallowance of expenses claimed\ntowards handling charges amounting to Rs. 3,39,675/-.\n8. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time of\nhearing

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchase bills and sales bills have been submitted by the assessee and the payments made to the suppliers by way of RTGS/NEFT has been provided by the assessee, cannot be a valid reason for invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act by rejecting the books of accounts unless if there is any corroborative evidence regarding the source

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM PVT LTD, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is disposed off as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Polisetty Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Somasundaram Pvt Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Lakshmipuram Main Road, Colony, Ring Road, Guntur-522 007, Gujjanagundla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh-522006. Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Colony, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522006. Guntur-522 007, Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

deposition of Sri Polisetty Somasundaram and Sri Polisetty Abhinava Sundaram observed that no evidence was furnished to prove that the cash withdrawals were used for the purchase of tobacco and therefore made an addition of Rs. 17,71,40,620/- as bogus

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: “Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only