DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

purchase agreement dated 02.09.2015 and an image of a handwritten scribbling were seized. The “agreement” recorded the transfer of 1,06,900 shares by the assessee at Rs. 657 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,33,300. 4. On the other hand, the seized scribbling contained entries which the department construed as cash payments to certain

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

1,59,55,961/-.The Ld. CIT(A) ought tohave\nupheld the entire disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to\nRs.1,59,55,961/-.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in taking a view that the entire bogus\npurchases cannot be taxed and directing theAO to restrict thedisallowance @\n8% of the bogus purchases, without giving any cogent reason

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

1,59,55,961/-.The Ld. CIT(A) ought tohave\nupheld the entire disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to\nRs.1,59,55,961/-.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in taking a view that the entire bogus\npurchases cannot be taxed and directing theAO to restrict thedisallowance @\n8% of the bogus purchases, without giving any cogent reason

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)

bogus purchases, the assessee company vide its reply dated 08/01/2024 rebutted the same. It was submitted by the assessee company that during the Financial Year 2017-18, M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited (SEIL) had sold 998.870 mts of MS bars to M/s. Hero Wiretex Private Limited but had not taken the delivery of inventory due to non-payment of sale

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

1,59,55,961/-.The Ld. CIT(A) ought tohave\nupheld the entire disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to\nRs.1,59,55,961/-.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in taking a view that the entire bogus\npurchases cannot be taxed and directing theAO to restrict thedisallowance @\n8% of the bogus purchases, without giving any cogent reason

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

1,59,55,961/-.The Ld. CIT(A) ought tohave\nupheld the entire disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to\nRs.1,59,55,961/-.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in taking a view that the entire bogus\npurchases cannot be taxed and directing theAO to restrict thedisallowance @\n8% of the bogus purchases, without giving any cogent reason

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

1,59,55,961/-.The Ld. CIT(A) ought tohave\nupheld the entire disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to\nRs.1,59,55,961/-.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in taking a view that the entire bogus\npurchases cannot be taxed and directing theAO to restrict thedisallowance @\n8% of the bogus purchases, without giving any cogent reason

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

1,59,55,961/-.The Ld. CIT(A) ought tohave\nupheld the entire disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to\nRs.1,59,55,961/-.\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in taking a view that the entire bogus\npurchases cannot be taxed and directing theAO to restrict thedisallowance @\n8% of the bogus purchases, without giving any cogent reason

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 u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter