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

2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\ndisallowance to onlyRs.73,23,322/-." The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered\nthat once the purchases are conclusively proved to be non-genuine

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

15", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee, engaged in trading steel bars, filed its return of income for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries for purchases from certain suppliers. The AO added the entire purchase amount and transportation charges as bogus. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance

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

15", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee company, engaged in trading steel bars, declared its income for A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries for purchases from certain suppliers. Despite the suppliers admitting to providing accommodation entries, the AO disallowed the entire purchases and transportation charges claimed

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

2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\ndisallowance to onlyRs.73,23,322/-." The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered\nthat once the purchases are conclusively proved to be non-genuine

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15, 16, 17 & 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 41 Court, the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide

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

15", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, engaged in trading steel bars, filed its return for AY 2015-16 declaring income of Rs. 44,51,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under section 147, suspecting accommodation entries for steel purchases from three suppliers. The AO added Rs. 1,55,36,109 for bogus purchases

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

2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\ndisallowance to onlyRs.73,23,322/-.\" The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered\nthat once the purchases are conclusively proved to be non-genuine

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

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

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

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