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

section 147, suspecting accommodation entries for steel purchases from three suppliers. The AO added Rs. 1,55,36,109 for bogus

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 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\nM/s. GVA Industries

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 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

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage No. 14\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025\nVenkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd., 552\nto have considered that once the purchases are conclusively proved to be\nnon-genuine. partial disallowance of such expenditure

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:

purchase transactions, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the subject loan transaction in question. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 20. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case before us, we are of the firm conviction that the CIT(A) ought not to have summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company that it had raised

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:

purchase transactions, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the subject loan transaction in question. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 20. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case before us, we are of the firm conviction that the CIT(A) ought not to have summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company that it had raised

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:

purchase transactions, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the subject loan transaction in question. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 20. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case before us, we are of the firm conviction that the CIT(A) ought not to have summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company that it had raised

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:

purchase transactions, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the subject loan transaction in question. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 20. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case before us, we are of the firm conviction that the CIT(A) ought not to have summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company that it had raised

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:

purchase transactions, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the subject loan transaction in question. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 20. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case before us, we are of the firm conviction that the CIT(A) ought not to have summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company that it had raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage No. 14\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025\nVenkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd.,\nto have considered that once the purchases are conclusively proved to be\nnon-genuine. partial disallowance of such expenditure goes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage No. 14\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025\nVenkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd.,\nto have considered that once the purchases are conclusively proved to be\nnon-genuine. partial disallowance of such expenditure goes

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage No. 14\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025\nVenkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd.,\nto have considered that once the purchases are conclusively proved to be\nnon-genuine. partial disallowance of such expenditure goes