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:

unexplained cash credit under 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

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:

unexplained cash credit under 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

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:

unexplained cash credit under 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

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

unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred

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

unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred

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

unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred

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

unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred

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

unexplained credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

credits under section 68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also observed difference in commission of sales\namounting to Rs. 10,67,285/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. Further Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has claimed Rs.95,42,395/-\nas handling charges

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68\nof the Act.\n\n8. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee and its\nfamily members had invested in M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited and\nM/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO found that initially huge share capital\nwas invested by several companies based at Kolkata and Delhi

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. GM CABLES & SWITCHES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.32/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gm Cables & Switches Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aafcg3325C (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Rushabh Mehta, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

cash credit U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the Ld. AO also made an addition of Rs. 9,98,217/-being the interest payment made to M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd on the premise that originally the unsecured loan is merely an accommodation entry and interest expenses claimed on such principal amount cannot be considered as genuine and hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

bogus LTCG/STCL and Business loss entries through various penny scrips. M/s.Steel Exchange India Ltd was identified as one of such scrip and the assessee was identified as one of beneficiaries who entered into transaction in the said scrip to the tune of Rs.3,87,36,001/-. Subsequently, notice under section 148 dated 28.07.2022 was duly issued. In response, assessee filed

LOKANADHA RAO BATHINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [Pan :Apqpb9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchase of land along with three others Bathina Rajyalakshmi, M.Sridevi and M.AdiSankar and the consideration attributable to assessee’s share amounting to Rs.3,07,75,000/-. Further, the assessee has also incurred registration and stamp duty expenses of Rs.23,08,175/-. An amount of Rs.55,74,687/- was paid during the year under review including TDS of Rs.2

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Credit, treated Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 162/VIZ/2023 Sri Rajani Gold an amount of Rs.31,41,71,000/- as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 9. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee made similar representations / submissions regarding the Specified Bank Notes

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68\nof the Act.\n8. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee and its\nfamily members had invested in M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited and\nM/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO found that initially huge share capital\nwas invested by several companies based at Kolkata and Delhi. The shares

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchase and sale of gold jewellery and silverware. The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 18.09.2014, declaring total income at Rs.61,58,100/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notice

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPTNAM vs. MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchase and sale of gold jewellery and silverware. The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 18.09.2014, declaring total income at Rs.61,58,100/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KAKINADA vs. SUDHA AGRO OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, G.RAGAMPETA

Credit Society Limited (hereinafter in short\n“SRMUCS\" or \"the Society\") is to be treated as bogus accommodation entry as\nconcluded by the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"]. The Ld.\nCIT(A) deleted the said addition for the reasons mentioned in his Appellate\nOrder. Aggrieved by the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed