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 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:

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

GRANDHI SRI VENKATA AMARENDRA,ELURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.23 & 24/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of C/O Vaibhav Jewllers Income Tax, Main Road Central Circle-1 Eluru Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Income Tax, Amarendra Central Circle-1 C/O Vaibhav Jewellers Visakhapatnam Main Road Eluru [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21 .08.2018

unexplained cash credit holding that no prudent person would involve in such a huge transaction around Rs.81.00 lakhs in a casual manner and return the precious metal without obtaining the proper receipt. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made

GRANDHI SRI VENKATA AMARENDRA,ELURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.23 & 24/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of C/O Vaibhav Jewllers Income Tax, Main Road Central Circle-1 Eluru Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Income Tax, Amarendra Central Circle-1 C/O Vaibhav Jewellers Visakhapatnam Main Road Eluru [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21 .08.2018

unexplained cash credit holding that no prudent person would involve in such a huge transaction around Rs.81.00 lakhs in a casual manner and return the precious metal without obtaining the proper receipt. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made

SEERAM PADMANABHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,ELURU vs. ITO, WARD-1,, ELURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Seeram Padmanabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.6A-2-6, Near Gandhi Statue Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aaqcs9501F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained cash credits. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has accepted the advances of Rs.1,08,90,000/-from 66 customers as per page Nos.213 to 215 of the paper book. 3 I.T.A. No.468 /Viz/2017 M/s Seeram Padmanabha Jewellers (P) Ltd., Eluru 5. Before the AO, the assessee explained that it had received the advances below

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee on this issue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.523/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax D.No.48-19-5, Opp : Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.16/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.523/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp : Apsrtc Income Tax Commercial Complex Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

credit and excess stock was arrived at 2752.742 gms. Subsequently, in the next hearing, the assessee furnished a bill from M/s Jai Mata Di Jewellers dated 21.11.2015 stating that the said bill was also not entered in the books as the same was lying with another partner, Shri Rajendra Jain who was on tour at the time of survey conducted

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