SATYA PATTABHIRAM THAKASI,ANAKAPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.179/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Satya Pattabhiram Thakasi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-1-74/3, Lakshmi Narayana Ward-1, Nagar, Anakapalli – 531001, Aayakar Bhavan, Andhra Pradesh. Gandhinagar, Anakapalli, Pan: Abjpt5614K Andhra Pradesh-531001. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Sanjeev Rao, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 27/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization and properly explained the cash deposits of Rs. 2,09,108/-. Hence, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO is not warranted

CH RAMA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ch. Rama Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-99, Ramavarappadu, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada-521108. Vijayawada. Pan: Aacfc0545L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period, overstepped the scope of his authority by delving into unrelated areas, specifically pertaining to the disallowance of commission

KOMMURU NARASIMHA RAO(HUF),VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.48/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kommuru Narasimha Rao (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.29-28-21, Dasari Vari Street Ward-2(2) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aalhk1984Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowing an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards cash loans given to various persons realised during the period of demonetization

SREE SHANTINATH MUNISUVARAT SWAMY RAJENDRA SURI JAIN TRUST,TANUKU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, TANUKU

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee by adding it\nto the total income of the assessee. Further, Ld. AO also made addition of\nRs.11,50,962/- being the cash deposits made during the demonetization

RUTH MAMIDI,WEST GODAVARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Ruth Mamidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3-45 Ananthapalli, Ward-1, Ramalayam Veedhi, Nallajerla Tadepalligudem, Mandal, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Andhra Pradesh – 534111. Pan: Cxmpm 2888 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

disallowed 3/4th of the sale consideration and considered the proportionate cash deposit by the assessee as unexplained cash before, during and after demonetization

GUNISETTY SUDHARANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.187/Viz/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gunisetty Sudha Rani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 5-156, Main Road, Ward-4(2), Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh – 530027. Pan: Antpg7996D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,23,512/- made by the AO towards ad-hoc disallowance

SABBARAPU NARAYANA RAO,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

demonetization period we find that these cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee arise out of the alleged cash contribution by the partners. The Ld. Revenue Authorities have erred in disallowing

PENMATSA RAMA KRISHNA VARMA,BHIMAVARAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,93,020/- claimed by the assessee towards vehicle maintenance expenses. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assessee has deposited Rs. 93,43,840/- in cash during the demonetization

SRINIVASA RAO INUGANTI,MYLAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Inuganti Vs. Income Tax Officer Sy.No.537/5, S.V.S.Nager Ward-3(1) Mylavaram Vijayawada Ntr District [Pan : Abdpi5709C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

demonetization period”. Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for information. In response, the assessee has submitted the information called for. After verification of the information submitted, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed

SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA STONE CRUSHERS,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

demonetization period as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that these are mere receipts from business activities of the Appellant which is totally arbitrary. 3. The Learned AO and the CIT(A) have made an erroneous disallowance

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, , VIJAYAWADA vs. KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

demonetization period. 6. At the outset, the Ld. DR fully supported the order of the Ld. AO and stated that the assessee has provided the evidence for payment of cost of improvement only to the extent of Rs. 11 lakhs by way of banking channels and the balance of Rs. 18 lakhs to be disallowed

VOBILISETTY SUBBALAKSHMI L/R OF LATE VOBILISETTY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Ward-1(1) Satyanarayana Murthy Rajahmundry D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry [Pan : Acxpv6079M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

demonetization period. Notices were issued by the Assessing Officer(AO) to file certain details, however, the assessee had not responded to several notices issued by the AO. Hence, the AO completed the assessment based on the details available on record and passed order u/s 144 of the Act dated 24.12.2019, determining the income of Rs.1,14,79,126/- by disallowing

PURAMA RAMAKRISHNA RAO,SALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.221/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Saluru, Vizianagaram Dist., Ward-2, Andhra Pradesh. Vizianagaram. Pan: Altpp40003E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization periods also the assessee has made cash deposits in his bank account and the same was not disputed by the Revenue. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Revenue’s stand that since the assessee has not filed the return of income, the deposits made by the assessee are required to be added to the total income

THE GUDIVADA CO-OP URBAN BANK LIMITED,GUDIVADA vs. ASSITANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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.03/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) The Gudivada Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Gudivada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aaaat 2586 R Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

demonetization period, from 15/11/2016 to 30/11/2016 is acceptable and is in accordance with the Circular, dated 14/11/2016, issued by Reserve Bank of India, hence in this view of the matter the orders passed U/s. 250 and as well as order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act are not legally sustainable order. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) while coming

PADMAVATHI GURUVU,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.227/Viz/2024 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Padmavathi Guruvu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-2, Pan: Abopg1523D Srikakulam. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

disallow the same. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the remand report to the assessee calling for rebuttal of the same. The assessee submitted its report on 15/03/2024 by making point wise rebuttal of the observations of the Ld.AO in the remand report. The Ld. CIT(A) after careful consideration of the submissions and the material available on record, estimated

THE VIJAYAWADA ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 2(1) , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2 (1) Office Of The Assistant Engineer Vijayawada Operation, Kg Market Section Beside Vmc Building Apcpdcl, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaeat3589Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

demonetization period along with names and addresses of the members on account of loan repayment, share capital and thrift deposits. The AO had called for additional information in support of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. In support of the claim, the assessee had filed the list of members from whom the cash was received. The AO had treated

KANASAPALLI PACS LTD,KANASAPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.125/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kanasanapalli Pacs Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanasanapalli Post, Ward-3(4), Agiripalli Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521212. Pan: Aabak 4998 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

demonetization period, the cash does not pertains any SBNs. Further, on perusal of certain information furnished through ITBA, viz., trading account, P & L Account and balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 the Ld. AO noted that during the FY 2016-17 relevant to the AY 2017-18, the assessee has shown a net profit of Rs. 2,27,746/- and claimed

KONIZERLA SRI TILAK PACS, KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.136/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-126 Konizerla, Penugolanu Ward-3(5), Post, Gampalagudem Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhr Pradesh. Pan: Aabak2512K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period. The Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee did not file its return of income before the due date U/s. 139(1) of the Act and therefore a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act calling for return of income was issued on 07/03/2018 and the same was served on the assessee on 16/03/2018. However