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

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 thereby establishing the fact that the purchases have been\naccounted in the books of accounts and payments are made through banking\nchannels by the assessee. Further

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

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 thereby establishing the fact that the purchases have been\naccounted in the books of accounts and payments are made through banking\nchannels by the assessee. Further

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

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 thereby establishing the fact that the purchases have been\naccounted in the books of accounts and payments are made through banking\nchannels by the assessee. Further

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

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 thereby establishing the fact that the purchases have been\naccounted in the books of accounts and payments are made through banking\nchannels by the assessee. Further

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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage

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 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

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

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage