THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances of Rs 1,90,000/- and Rs. 1,04,865/- made by the assessing officer u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in allowing deduction of only 5% towards difference in CPWD rates and local rates as against 15% to 20% consistently allowed by the Hon'ble Income

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances of Rs 1,90,000/- and Rs. 1,04,865/- made by the assessing officer u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in allowing deduction of only 5% towards difference in CPWD rates and local rates as against 15% to 20% consistently allowed by the Hon'ble Income

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances of Rs 1,90,000/- and Rs. 1,04,865/- made by the assessing officer u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in allowing deduction of only 5% towards difference in CPWD rates and local rates as against 15% to 20% consistently allowed by the Hon'ble Income

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , GUNTUR vs. SAI BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS, , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.465/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sai Balaji Constructions Income Tax B-8, Svn Colony Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Abafs6923M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Bala Srinivas, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.1,54,920/- u/s 69C of the Act relating to the purchase cost of machinery. It is found from the assessment order that in the original assessment, the assessee has stated to have purchased the machinery worth Rs.1,54,920/- and claimed the depreciation of Rs.43,376/- on the said asset. According to the AO, the assessee

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

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

69C of the Act. 5. Further, Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has received interest under section 194A of the Act of Rs.4,26,634/- and Rs. 28,89,339/- from Shri Brajrang Power &Ispat Ltd., and Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) P. Ltd., respectively. Ld.AO observed that that the interest income has not been offered for taxation

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 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

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

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

M/S. DINAKAR SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

69C of the Act towards unexplained expenditure.” S.A.No. 63-66/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Dinakar Sai Constructions) 17. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that on verification of impounded material, the assessee has received on money for sale of flats to the tune of Rs. 25.28 lakhs. The assessee failed to substantiate the same, therefore entire amount

M/S. DINAKAR SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

69C of the Act towards unexplained expenditure.” S.A.No. 63-66/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Dinakar Sai Constructions) 17. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that on verification of impounded material, the assessee has received on money for sale of flats to the tune of Rs. 25.28 lakhs. The assessee failed to substantiate the same, therefore entire amount

SRI KEERTHI PROJECTS ,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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.164/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Keerthi Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer 3-20-14, Near Recruiting Office Ward-1(1) Pattabhipuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Abjfs1107Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 263 of the Act. A detailed show cause notice u/s 263 was issued and served on the assessee on 08.03.2023 with the issues viz., (i) unexplained expenditure u/s 69C (ii) receipts offered in ITR vs. Receipts in Form 26AS for the A.Y.2018-19 and (iii) addition to fixed assets. 3 I.T.A. No.164/Viz/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur Despite

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the unsecured loan for a sum of Rs 1.52 crores u/s 68 of the Act, agricultural income for Rs 88,500/-and also treated a sum of Rs. 3,92,242/- advanced by the company M/s. ATR Ware Housing Pvt Ltd., to the assessee which holds 45% of the shares in the company as deemed dividend

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the unsecured loan for a sum of Rs 1.52 crores u/s 68 of the Act, agricultural income for Rs 88,500/-and also treated a sum of Rs. 3,92,242/- advanced by the company M/s. ATR Ware Housing Pvt Ltd., to the assessee which holds 45% of the shares in the company as deemed dividend

A.TIRUPATHI RAYUDU(HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

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

disallowed the unsecured loan for a sum of Rs 1.52 crores u/s 68 of the Act, agricultural income for Rs 88,500/-and also treated a sum of Rs. 3,92,242/- advanced by the company M/s. ATR Ware Housing Pvt Ltd., to the assessee which holds 45% of the shares in the company as deemed dividend