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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

bogus purchases claimed by the assessee\ncompany were disallowed and brought to tax.\n14. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Sri B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) 62\nTaxmann.com215/234 Taxmann 771, where in it was held that even a sworn\nstatement shall also constitute incriminating material

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

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

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

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

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

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

bogus purchases thereby confirmed the deletion of balance of\nRs.18,44,787/-. The Ld. CIT(A), thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n11. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: .\n"1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both

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

bogus purchases thereby confirmed the deletion of balance of\nRs.18,44,787/-. The Ld. CIT(A), thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n11.\nOn being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: .\n\"1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both

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

bogus purchases thereby confirmed the deletion of balance of\nRs.18,44,787/-. The Ld. CIT(A), thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n11. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: .\n\"1. The order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both

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

bogus purchases thereby confirmed the deletion of balance of\nRs.18,44,787/-. The Ld. CIT(A), thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n11. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: .\n\"1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both