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 purchases and Rs. 5,19,852 for transportation charges.", "held": "The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 8

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

section 147, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries for purchases from certain suppliers. Despite the suppliers admitting to providing accommodation entries, the AO disallowed the entire purchases and transportation charges claimed by the assessee.", "held": "The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the disallowance to 8% of the bogus

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

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

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

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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

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. 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

DY. 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