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

section 147, suspecting accommodation entries for steel purchases from three suppliers. The AO added Rs. 1,55,36,109 for bogus purchases and Rs. 5,19,852 for transportation charges.", "held": "The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 12

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

bogus\npurchases but only relied on the statements recorded during the survey\noperations of the relevant suppliers' companies. Various judicial precedents\nhave held that the statement recorded under section 133 of the Act does not\nhave any evidentiary value. Further, Ld.AO has also observed in Paragraph\nNo.10 that the assessee has made payments through banking channels to the\nalleged suppliers

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

bogus\npurchases but only relied on the statements recorded during the survey\noperations of the relevant suppliers' companies. Various judicial precedents\nhave held that the statement recorded under section 133 of the Act does not\nhave any evidentiary value. Further, Ld.AO has also observed in Paragraph\nNo.10 that the assessee has made payments through banking channels to the\nalleged suppliers

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

bogus\npurchases but only relied on the statements recorded during the survey\noperations of the relevant suppliers' companies. Various judicial precedents\nhave held that the statement recorded under section 133 of the Act does not\nhave any evidentiary value. Further, Ld.AO has also observed in Paragraph\nNo.10 that the assessee has made payments through banking channels to the\nalleged suppliers

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

12, 13, 21 and 22 are similar in nature with regard to ‘non-purchase of capital asset’. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the proportionate share of interest U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,98,37,651/- wherein the assessee itself has admitted that it has not purchased the capital asset

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

12, 13, 21 and 22 are similar in nature with regard to ‘non-purchase of capital asset’. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the proportionate share of interest U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,98,37,651/- wherein the assessee itself has admitted that it has not purchased the capital asset

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

12, 13, 21 and 22 are similar in nature with regard to ‘non-purchase of capital asset’. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the proportionate share of interest U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,98,37,651/- wherein the assessee itself has admitted that it has not purchased the capital asset

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

12, 13, 21 and 22 are similar in nature with regard to ‘non-purchase of capital asset’. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the proportionate share of interest U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,98,37,651/- wherein the assessee itself has admitted that it has not purchased the capital asset

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

12, 13, 21 and 22 are similar in nature with regard to ‘non-purchase of capital asset’. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the proportionate share of interest U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,98,37,651/- wherein the assessee itself has admitted that it has not purchased the capital asset

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

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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.\nFurther, 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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.\nFurther, 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