DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

disallowed bogus purchases at 10%.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 132", "Section 133A", "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 142(1)", "Section 132(1)", "Section 132(4)", "Section 131", "Section 68", "Section 69C

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Section 69C"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to 8% instead of upholding

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Section 69C" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of bogus purchases when suppliers

THE CHODAVARAM CO OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO after perusing the details furnished by the assessee observed that the assessee has paid bonus amount of Rs.1,27,03,496/- during the F.Y.2017-18 on various dates from April 2017 to September 2017. The Ld.AO observed that generally, bonus is declared during Diwali season and paid accordingly and therefore, concluded that the bonus amount of Rs.1,27,03,490 does not pertain to the impugned assessment year and therefore disallowed the same.

disallowance of bonus payment by invocation of section 69C, when the expenditure was duly recorded in books and when section

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

disallowing handling charges.", "held": "The Tribunal, in its decision, allowed some grounds raised by the assessee, directing the AO to delete certain additions. For instance, the addition for unexplained expenditure under section 69C

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

disallowance at 10%. The addition of Rs. 93,943/- was deleted as it was already considered in the estimation of unaccounted sales.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "132", "133A", "147", "148", "132(1)", "132(4)", "142(1)", "Section 68", "Section 69C

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

disallowance goes against the principles.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "69C" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "69C", "21" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of bogus purchases should be restricted

ISRINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs.2,98,026/- under section\n40(a)(ia).Ground\n3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not\njustified in confirming the treatment of Rs.34,14,944/- as unexplained\nexpenditure under section 69C.Ground\n4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not\njustified in confirming the treatment of Rs.45,30,000/- as unexplained cash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP UNION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

section 69C of\nthe Act.\n3. On being aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO, assessee filed\nappeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee reiterated its submissions made before\nLd.AO, and the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the submissions made by the assessee and\nthus allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n4. On being aggrieved by the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance

SRINIVASA RAO CHEEDELLA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAPATLA

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

Bench: The Itat.

disallowance of 15% of the total purchases was made on estimation basis and the addition was made u/s 69C of the Act. Apart from this, during the year, the Ld.AO found that the appellant has introduced new loans of Rs.40 lakhs from 4 lenders. As the assessee has not submitted the identity of the lenders and the genuineness

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance