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

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

bogus purchases and the interest thereon and allowed the appeal partly. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT, and filed the additional ground agitating the validity of reopening of assessment. The 5 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur ITAT vide order dated 22.02.1999 set aside the order

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

bogus purchases and the interest thereon and allowed the appeal partly. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT, and filed the additional ground agitating the validity of reopening of assessment. The 5 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur ITAT vide order dated 22.02.1999 set aside the order

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 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

section 148 of the Act amounting to\nRs.5,56,52,166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9. Further, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing

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:

bogus sales and purchase bills to various entities without any actual supply of goods. The A.O., based on the aforesaid information holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

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:

bogus sales and purchase bills to various entities without any actual supply of goods. The A.O., based on the aforesaid information holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

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:

bogus sales and purchase bills to various entities without any actual supply of goods. The A.O., based on the aforesaid information holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

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:

bogus sales and purchase bills to various entities without any actual supply of goods. The A.O., based on the aforesaid information holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

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:

bogus sales and purchase bills to various entities without any actual supply of goods. The A.O., based on the aforesaid information holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated

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

section 148 of the Act amounting to\nRs.5,56,52,166/- made addition of Rs.21,60,86,928/-.\n9.\nFurther, Ld. AO also made addition on unaccounted excess sales found in\nERP data in comparing with return of income amounting to Rs.93,943/-. Ld. AO\nalso did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding the bogus purchases\nin comparing