BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

39 results for “disallowance”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi208Chennai147Mumbai114Bangalore96Jaipur87Hyderabad82Kolkata67Ahmedabad50Surat40Visakhapatnam39Pune36Chandigarh34Lucknow34Panaji32Rajkot29Agra22Jodhpur19Cuttack18Amritsar12Patna11Indore10Raipur10Dehradun9Allahabad6Nagpur5Cochin4Jabalpur4Varanasi3Karnataka2Ranchi2Calcutta2Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 142(1)65Section 80P52Section 14451Demonetization37Cash Deposit31Section 69A28Section 80A(5)22Addition to Income21Section 143(3)20Section 139(1)

SRI VASAVI KALA MANDIR,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.107/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Vasavi Kala Mandir, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 2/16, Main Road, Ward-1, Bobbili, Vizianagaram Dist, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh – 535558. Andhra Pradesh-535002. Pan: Aaifs2687P (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 : 30/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 27/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

18
Disallowance17
Section 143(2)15
Section 69A

disallowed the cash deposits made during the demonetization period by holding that the assessee has failed to give any explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri C. Sanjeev Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

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

ITA 153/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 44A

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

ITA 48/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

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)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 187/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

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

ITA 217/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

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

ITA 81/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

ITA 28/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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)

For Appellant: Shri Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 57Section 69A

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

ITA 495/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 69A

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, WARD-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MUTYALA JEWELLERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 75/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

disallowances be restored.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee firm engaged in the business of sale of gold jewellery and silver articles. A survey u/sec. 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 14/03/2017 based on cash deposits during demonetization

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

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

ITA 275/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 69A

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

ITA 221/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 271FSection 3Section 69A

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

ITA 3/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JAYA PRAKASH BABU VALLURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 31/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.31/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Jaya Prakash Babu Valluri Circle-3(1) #1/211, Vasanth Vihar Visakhapatnam Opp. Railway Station Vizianagaram [Pan : Acnpv2451K]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, DR
Section 40

disallowed and added back to the income. 5 ITA No.31/Viz/2021 and CO No.52 /Viz/2021, A.Y.2017-18 Jaya Prakash Babu Valluri, Vizianagaram 9. Against which the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) found that the assessee advanced the amounts to VVCIPL on which interest paid to the extent of Rs.31,06,036/-. The assessee also received

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

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

ITA 227/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

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

ITA 273/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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)

For Appellant: Shri P.Srinivasa Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhkar Aves, Sr.AR
Section 139(11)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

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

ITA 125/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VASANTHA BABU VALLURI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.34/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Vasantha Babu Valluri Circle-3(1) #1/211, Vasanth Vihar Visakhapatnam Opp. Railway Station, Vizianagaram [Pan : Adipv8680J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.53/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.34/Viz/2021) Sri Vasantha Babu Valluri Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax #1/211, Vasanth Vihar Circle-3(1) Opp. Railway Station, Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram [Pan : Adipv8680J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singhthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In Ita

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, DR

disallowed 30% of the expenditure for non deduction of tax at source. 12. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that TDS was liable on commission payments, carpentary works and painting works and the assessee has duly deducted the TDS. However, the assessee argued that other heads of expenditure