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

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

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

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

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

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

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

section 148 of the Act amounting to\nRs.5,56,52,166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9. Further, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing

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

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

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

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

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

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO made the addition alternately u/s 40A(3) of the Act also. The AO made the addition of the same amount on both the grounds of disallowance u/s 40A3 as well as the bogus purchases. 10.4 Similarly, for the A.Y.85-86 the AO made the addition on account of bogus purchases of technicals

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO made the addition alternately u/s 40A(3) of the Act also. The AO made the addition of the same amount on both the grounds of disallowance u/s 40A3 as well as the bogus purchases. 10.4 Similarly, for the A.Y.85-86 the AO made the addition on account of bogus purchases of technicals

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order U/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset till the date on which the asset shall put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. He argued that since the asset is itself bogus in nature, interest paid on the Term Loan for purchase