MEDIBOYANA VENKATA APPALA SURYA PRAKASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.506/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Mediboyana Venkata Appala Vs. Assistant Commissioner Surya Prakash, Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-4(1), Pan: Agnpm7780L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 17/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 31/10/2017. The 2 Mediboyana Venkata Appala Surya Prakash Vs. Acit

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 31/10/2017 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,15,10,250/- . 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: “Decision:- 6. I have carefully considered the grounds

SEERAM PADMANABHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,ELURU vs. ITO, WARD-1,, ELURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Seeram Padmanabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.6A-2-6, Near Gandhi Statue Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aaqcs9501F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

4 days amounting to Rs.1,28,01,800/-, thereafter, there was no purchase and sale up to 11.07.2012 after effecting the sales of Rs.1.08 crores on 18.07.2012. The assessee has again shown advances from customers from 24.07.2012 and it was continued upto 13.08.2012. Therefore, the AO was of the view that whenever the assessee was in need of cash

M/S. PHARMA BIO SOLUTIONS,,CHINNAVUTAPALLI vs. THE, CIT(A),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) M/S Pharma Bio Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer (Formerly Named As Ward-1(2) M/S Padmaja Laboratories Vijayawada Chinnavutapalli [Pan:Aakfp5523D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. B.V.S. Chalapathi Rao, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018

4 . 17/09/2010 Cash cheque 548845 40,000 5. 23/09/2010 Cash cheque 548849 50,000 6. 01/10/2010 Cash Cheque paid to self 548853 2,00,000 7. 06/10/2010 Cash Cheque paid to self 548961 1,00,000 8. 08/10/2010 Cash Cheque paid to self 548962 25,000 9. 14/12/2010 Cash Cheque paid to self 549140 6,50,000 From the above