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)

144 of the Act based on the material available on record. 35. Assessing Officer noticed that a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.12.2015 and during the course of survey the Managing Director of the assessee-company was asked to prove the genuineness of three sub-contractors whom

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)

144 of the Act based on the material available on record. 35. Assessing Officer noticed that a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.12.2015 and during the course of survey the Managing Director of the assessee-company was asked to prove the genuineness of three sub-contractors whom

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)

144 of the Act based on the material available on record. 35. Assessing Officer noticed that a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.12.2015 and during the course of survey the Managing Director of the assessee-company was asked to prove the genuineness of three sub-contractors whom

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.01.2024. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee has failed to furnish return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19. According to the information, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] noticed that the assessee received a commission of Rs. 58,07,237/- during the impugned assessment

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 :

disallowance of depreciation. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence. During the appeal hearing, before us, the Ld.AR could not controvert the finding given by the AO with evidence. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld

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 :

disallowance of depreciation. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence. During the appeal hearing, before us, the Ld.AR could not controvert the finding given by the AO with evidence. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld

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 :

disallowance of depreciation. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence. During the appeal hearing, before us, the Ld.AR could not controvert the finding given by the AO with evidence. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld

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 :

disallowance of depreciation. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence. During the appeal hearing, before us, the Ld.AR could not controvert the finding given by the AO with evidence. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld

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 :

disallowance of depreciation. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence. During the appeal hearing, before us, the Ld.AR could not controvert the finding given by the AO with evidence. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI KESHAVA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY`, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. KESHAVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI KESAVA REDDY EDUCATIONAL TRUST,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), , VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SARASWATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SURY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI KESAVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY`, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI KESHAVA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. KESAVA REDDY EDUCATIONAL TRUST,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI VENKATESWARA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. BHARAT REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the only condition to invoke 144 assessee’s failure to comply with all the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) and the assessee has not complied notice