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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

bogus purchases, the assessee company vide its reply dated 08/01/2024 rebutted the same. It was submitted by the assessee company that during the Financial Year 2017-18, M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited (SEIL) had sold 998.870 mts of MS bars to M/s. Hero Wiretex Private Limited but had not taken the delivery of inventory due to non-payment of sale

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

purchase agreement dated 02.09.2015 and an image of a handwritten scribbling were seized. The “agreement” recorded the transfer of 1,06,900 shares by the assessee at Rs. 657 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,33,300. 4. On the other hand, the seized scribbling contained entries which the department construed as cash payments to certain

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

bogus, the amount received cannot be added. It\nwas mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) that the customers of assessee company cannot file\naffidavits confirming the transaction because they were not in touch with them\nnow, as seven years elapsed. No effort/independent verification was made by\nLd.AO. Since the sales were accepted by Revenue as genuine, the amount\nreceived as sale

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchases as the onus is on assessee to prove the creditworthiness and Identity of the creditors but the assessee failed to prove the same during the assessment proceedings. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the recent judgments like Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchases as the onus is on assessee to prove the creditworthiness and Identity of the creditors but the assessee failed to prove the same during the assessment proceedings. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the recent judgments like Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

purchases as the onus is on assessee to prove the creditworthiness and Identity of the creditors but the assessee failed to prove the same during the assessment proceedings. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the recent judgments like Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

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

moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order\nheld that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by\nassessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in\npenny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accomodation\nof LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock\nexchange and officials of company involved in these transactions

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

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)

Money for the purpose of any transaction except for depositing in bank stating that Government of India notified Rs.1000 and Rs.500 will not be a legal tender w.e.f. 09.11.2016. Considering the above facts, Ld.AO found that the assessee was owner of the cash deposited into bank account, but has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source