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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEVI TATIPARTI, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.41/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Smt.Devi Tatiparti Circle-3(1) D.No.10-27-7/19 Visakhapatnam Sri Satya Sai Enclave Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.37/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.41/Viz/2021 Smt.Devi Tatiparti Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.10-27-7/19 Circle-3(1) Sri Satya Sai Enclave Visakhapatnam Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In Ita

Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble**

money under section 69A of the Act. - **6.** On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal. - **7.** On being aggrieved, assessee filed

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

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

money Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance to purchase land on 28.06.2000. strange coincidence that both the lenders have given advance to the appellant 8.06.2000 and the appellant had deposited the same amount on 28.06.2000 and withdrawn on 07.07.2000 which is not convincing as conclusive that it is genuine the sense that a person

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

money Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance to purchase land on 28.06.2000. strange coincidence that both the lenders have given advance to the appellant 8.06.2000 and the appellant had deposited the same amount on 28.06.2000 and withdrawn on 07.07.2000 which is not convincing as conclusive that it is genuine the sense that a person

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

money Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance to purchase land on 28.06.2000. strange coincidence that both the lenders have given advance to the appellant 8.06.2000 and the appellant had deposited the same amount on 28.06.2000 and withdrawn on 07.07.2000 which is not convincing as conclusive that it is genuine the sense that a person

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

money Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance to purchase land on 28.06.2000. strange coincidence that both the lenders have given advance to the appellant 8.06.2000 and the appellant had deposited the same amount on 28.06.2000 and withdrawn on 07.07.2000 which is not convincing as conclusive that it is genuine the sense that a person

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

money Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance to purchase land on 28.06.2000. strange coincidence that both the lenders have given advance to the appellant 8.06.2000 and the appellant had deposited the same amount on 28.06.2000 and withdrawn on 07.07.2000 which is not convincing as conclusive that it is genuine the sense that a person

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

depreciation amounting to Rs.33,975 made by the assessing officer. 8. For any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3 ITA Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 N.V.Vasantha Rao, Visakhapatnam 3. Subsequently the assessee filed following additional grounds of appeal : 1. The Notice issued under section 148 is vague as the irrelevant portions of the notice are not struck

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

depreciation amounting to Rs.33,975 made by the assessing officer. 8. For any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3 ITA Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 N.V.Vasantha Rao, Visakhapatnam 3. Subsequently the assessee filed following additional grounds of appeal : 1. The Notice issued under section 148 is vague as the irrelevant portions of the notice are not struck