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

250 ITR 738, it was held that assessee must produce confirmatory letter from other party as proof for insisting on cash payment. 6.4 The relevant extract from the Board Circular No.220 dated 31/05/1977is reproduced below for the sake of convenience. [108 ITR (st) 8&9] “It can be said that it would generally satisfy the requirements of rule 6

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)

250 to 251, the Ld.AR submitted that in the subsequent assessment year i.e. 2014-15, the AO has accepted the customer advances and no addition was made. Referring to page No.149 ‘Item Register’, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee was continuously making the purchases and sales as per the requirement but not rarely as observed by the AO. Though there