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

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that they\nhave never supplied any material and have provided only accommodation\nentries. The assessee was requested to furnish information regarding alleged\npurchases vide notice U/s.142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2021. In response, the\nassessee company

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

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that they\nhave never supplied any material and have provided only accommodation\nentries. The assessee was requested to furnish information regarding alleged\npurchases vide notice U/s.142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2021. In response, the\nassessee company

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

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that they\nhave never supplied any material and have provided only accommodation\nentries. The assessee was requested to furnish information regarding alleged\npurchases vide notice U/s.142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2021. In response, the\nassessee company

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

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021. In the statement\nrecorded during the survey proceedings, the three suppliers have stated that they\nhave never supplied any material and have provided only accommodation\nentries. The assessee was requested to furnish information regarding alleged\npurchases vide notice U/s.142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2021. In response, the\nassessee company

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

69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit stock computed and admitted by the assessee. The Ld. AO has also made an addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement

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

69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit stock computed and admitted by the assessee. The Ld. AO has also made an addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement

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

69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit stock computed and admitted by the assessee. The Ld. AO has also made an addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement

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

69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit stock computed and admitted by the assessee. The Ld. AO has also made an addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement

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

69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit stock computed and admitted by the assessee. The Ld. AO has also made an addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement

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

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

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

bogus long term capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

bogus long term capital gain amount to\nRs.8,51,91,388/- claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act.\nFurther, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee\nobserved that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025

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

section 132(4A) that deem that the contents of the seized material are true.” 53. On the above grounds, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased tobacco from grey market by cash which was already included in the purchases while admitting the gross profit during the filing of return of income. The Ld. AR admitted that this grey

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

section 132(4A) that deem that the contents of the seized material are true.” 53. On the above grounds, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased tobacco from grey market by cash which was already included in the purchases while admitting the gross profit during the filing of return of income. The Ld. AR admitted that this grey