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

assessment because of his failure to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening ofassessment was justified.\n8.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of\nthe bogus purchases

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

assessment because of his failure to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening ofassessment was justified.\n8.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of\nthe bogus purchases

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

assessment because of his failure to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening ofassessment was justified.\n8.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of\nthe bogus purchases

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

assessment because of his failure to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening ofassessment was justified.\n8.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of\nthe bogus purchases

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

assessment because of his failure to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening ofassessment was justified.\n8. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of\nthe bogus purchases

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

assessment because of his failure to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening ofassessment was justified.\n8.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of\nthe bogus purchases

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

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

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

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

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

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

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

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

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

reopening of such assessment U/s.153A of the Act. Respectfully following the above referred judicial precedents, we are inclined to quash the assessment order which is bad in law. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 22. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. Nos. 140 & 141/VIZ/2025 on the validity of the assessment order under

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:

purchase bills to various entities and there was not actual supply of goods. He also mentioned that he controlled and managed the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. which is a paper company and not doing any genuine business activity and was only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. 6.3 The appellant during the year has taken loan

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:

purchase bills to various entities and there was not actual supply of goods. He also mentioned that he controlled and managed the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. which is a paper company and not doing any genuine business activity and was only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. 6.3 The appellant during the year has taken loan

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:

purchase bills to various entities and there was not actual supply of goods. He also mentioned that he controlled and managed the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. which is a paper company and not doing any genuine business activity and was only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. 6.3 The appellant during the year has taken loan

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:

purchase bills to various entities and there was not actual supply of goods. He also mentioned that he controlled and managed the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. which is a paper company and not doing any genuine business activity and was only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. 6.3 The appellant during the year has taken loan

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:

purchase bills to various entities and there was not actual supply of goods. He also mentioned that he controlled and managed the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. which is a paper company and not doing any genuine business activity and was only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. 6.3 The appellant during the year has taken loan

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Assessing Officer (for short, “JAO”) based on information that the assessee company which was engaged in the business of trading of steel had fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on the fake inward GST invoices issued by M/s. Hero Wiretex Ltd., on bogus purchases of Rs.4,24,70,696/-, reopened

LOKANADHA RAO BATHINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [Pan :Apqpb9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchase of land along with three others Bathina Rajyalakshmi, M.Sridevi and M.AdiSankar and the consideration attributable to assessee’s share amounting to Rs.3,07,75,000/-. Further, the assessee has also incurred registration and stamp duty expenses of Rs.23,08,175/-. An amount of Rs.55,74,687/- was paid during the year under review including TDS of Rs.2