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

section 129 of the Act. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished the required information and the Ld. AO after verification of the submissions, completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 25,10,000/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also made an addition

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

section 69A, it is clear that if the assessee found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery which is not recorded in the books of account, required to be brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee had sold the shares and received the sale proceeds, thus, the source stands explained. What

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

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]

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

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 :

section 69A shows that if the assessee found to be the owner of the money for which the assessee fails explain the source the same required to be taxed u/s 69A of I.T. act. In this case it is undisputed fact that money was belonged to the clients of the assessee and the assessee required to deposit in the Government

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 :

section 69A shows that if the assessee found to be the owner of the money for which the assessee fails explain the source the same required to be taxed u/s 69A of I.T. act. In this case it is undisputed fact that money was belonged to the clients of the assessee and the assessee required to deposit in the Government

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 :

section 69A shows that if the assessee found to be the owner of the money for which the assessee fails explain the source the same required to be taxed u/s 69A of I.T. act. In this case it is undisputed fact that money was belonged to the clients of the assessee and the assessee required to deposit in the Government

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 :

section 69A shows that if the assessee found to be the owner of the money for which the assessee fails explain the source the same required to be taxed u/s 69A of I.T. act. In this case it is undisputed fact that money was belonged to the clients of the assessee and the assessee required to deposit in the Government

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 :

section 69A shows that if the assessee found to be the owner of the money for which the assessee fails explain the source the same required to be taxed u/s 69A of I.T. act. In this case it is undisputed fact that money was belonged to the clients of the assessee and the assessee required to deposit in the Government

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. TATIPARTI SATYANARAYANA, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.76/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana Ward-1(1) D.No.25-8-9 & 10 Visakhapatnam Sri Satyanarayana Gold Complex, Main Road Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aggpt5353F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.42/Viz/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.25-8-9 & 10 Ward-1(1) Sri Satyanarayana Gold Complex, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aggpt5353F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Sthis Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam In Ita

section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. The CIT (A) erred in allowing additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of documents / paper book, when the same were not produced before the Assessing Officer, without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine and, if necessary, rebut the additional evidence to submit

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

disallow the claim of carry forward depreciation set off against the additions made u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the AO is directed to allow the set off of carry forward depreciation.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. Appearing for the revenue, the Ld.DR argued that unexplained cash credits

THE MACHILIPATNAM POSTAL DEPTL & GDS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NO H164,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 Aayakar Bhavan, Parasupeta Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aafat5514L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

69A of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. 3. Further, Ld. AO also did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee with respect to deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,92,203/-. Ld. AO thus invoked the provisions of section 80AC

VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 69A of the Act as unexplained money and has also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,85,500/- being claim

ALLADI KRISHNA PRASAD,MANDALAPARRU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TADEPALLIGUDEM

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.172/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Alladi Krishna Prasad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Aayakar Bhawan D.No. 3-73, Mandalaparru D.No. 2-1-56/1 Nidamarru Mandal Opp. Punjab National Bank West Godavari – 534198 K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcjpa7058L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A on account of credits. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and filed his submissions and evidences. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal

NARASIMHA RAO PALEM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.211/Viz/2023 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Narasimha Rao Palem Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Credit Ward-3(3), Society Limited, Vijayawada. Krishna District – 521214. Pan: Aacat7998M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

69A of the Act. 9. For these and such other submissions that are to be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the claim made by the assessee U/s. 80P of the Act be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued that the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble

disallowances of Rs.11,50,962/-. Further, Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal with respect to the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.94,55,673/-. - **4.** On being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following

NAKKA KASIVISWESWARA RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office #7-155 Aayakar Bhavan Kadiyapulanka Village Veerabhadrapuram Kadiyam Mandal Kambala Cheruvu East Godavari District-533126 Rajahmundry-533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aenpn2596K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the balance amount of Rs.10,26,289/- and added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A

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

69A of the Act. Further, for verification purposes, the Ld. AO issued notice U/s. 133(6) of the Act to the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Agiripalli Branch, Krishna District and received the information as called for with regard to the assessee’s account. On perusal of the assessee’s bank statements, the Ld. AO noted that though

KUNADHARAJU NAGA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU,GANAPAVARAM MANDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.442/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2018-19) Kanadharaju Naga Venkata Ramakrishnam Raju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-1 D.No. 3-96, Jallikakinada Income Tax Office, Sajjapuram Ganapavaram Mandal Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh West Godavari District – 534186 Andhra Pradesh

section 69A of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on his contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by him. The Ld.CIT(A) thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee