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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases and capitalization of the same while framing the scrutiny assessment. However, while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has resorted to inflation of capital expenditure to claim depreciation and interest on the Term Loan. It is a settled law that when section

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

bogus purchases and capitalization of the same while framing the scrutiny assessment. However, while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has resorted to inflation of capital expenditure to claim depreciation and interest on the Term Loan. It is a settled law that when section

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

bogus purchases and capitalization of the same while framing the scrutiny assessment. However, while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has resorted to inflation of capital expenditure to claim depreciation and interest on the Term Loan. It is a settled law that when section

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

bogus purchases and capitalization of the same while framing the scrutiny assessment. However, while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has resorted to inflation of capital expenditure to claim depreciation and interest on the Term Loan. It is a settled law that when section

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

bogus purchases and capitalization of the same while framing the scrutiny assessment. However, while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has resorted to inflation of capital expenditure to claim depreciation and interest on the Term Loan. It is a settled law that when section

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

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

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, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

bogus. Also, the CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 194Q had been made applicable from 01/07/2021, i.e., deduction of tax at source on the payments made against the purchases, and the same did not apply to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2019-20. 9. Apart from that, we find that

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