MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

money under section\n69A of the Act.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the\nPage. No 3\nassessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make any submissions in support of\nthe grounds of appeal.\n7. On being aggrieved

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

money under section\n69A of the Act.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the\nassessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make any submissions in support of\nthe grounds of appeal.\n7. On being aggrieved, assessee filed

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

money under section\n69A of the Act.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the\nPage. No 3\nassessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make any submissions in support of\nthe grounds of appeal.\n7. On being aggrieved

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TENALI vs. SURYAPRAKASARAO KANAPARTHY, BETHAPUDI, REPALLE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations, while for the appeal filed by the revenue having been rendered as academic in nature, is ...

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.239/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Suryaprakasarao Tenali. Kanaparthy, Bethapudi, Repalle, Bapatla. Pan: Dmqpk7509P (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained. The money has been received by the appellant as a fiducially and not as a beneficiary. 4.4 In view of the facts discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the addition made by the AO under Section 69A is not based on adequate evidence and hence requires to be deleted.” 5. In the result appeal for Assessment

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

depreciation of Rs.6,63,63,807/-against the addition under Sec.68 r.w.s. 115BBE(2) of the Act may be allowed in the interest of equity the assessed income of Rs.3,47,97,000/- which also included and justice and also to be in conformity with enacted law and also judge made law. 6. In the facts and circumstances

AMRUTHAVARSHINI DAIRY FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

depreciation @ 2.5% of the total turnover which worked out to Rs. 56,53,121/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO by observing that the assessee deposited cash in SBN amounting 3 Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms vs. ACIT to Rs. 8,87,500/- in his bank account but did not furnish any source

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit stock

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit stock

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit stock

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit stock

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit stock

KOLLI SUBRAHMANYAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

depreciation, which resulted in addition of Rs. 25,03,724/-. Further, the AO made addition of Rs. 35,79,539/- towards unexplained increase in the capital account of the assessee and addition of Rs.22,45,535/- towards unexplained sundry creditors. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), Vijayawada. The ld.CIT

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]

unexplained payment of commission. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not in accordance with law in as much as: a) The notice was issued by JAO contrary to the stipulations of'E- Assessment of Income escaping assessment scheme'. b) The notice was issued without

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act towards purchase of an immovable property: Rs.33,88,000/-, determined his income at Rs.52,43,830/-. 4 Venkata Prasad Pulipati vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried

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)

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who rejected the assessee’s contention that the order passed by the AO under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 01/04/2022 was contrary to the grounds based on which the show cause notice (SCN) was issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

unexplained. 4 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati 3. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing. Further, the assessee cross-objector has raised an additional ground which reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022 without