INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

demonetization period in December, 2016 in the bank account of M/s Jaya Balajee Real Media Private Limited (JBRMPL), a search and seizure action u/sec.132 of the Act was carried-out on that company, it’s Directors and 6 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 other related parties on 31.12.2016. During the course of search and seizure proceedings, Shri Tandra Ramesh

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

demonetization period in December, 2016 in the bank account of M/s Jaya Balajee Real Media Private Limited (JBRMPL), a search and seizure action u/sec.132 of the Act was carried-out on that company, it’s Directors and 6 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 other related parties on 31.12.2016. During the course of search and seizure proceedings, Shri Tandra Ramesh

ANANDA AQUA EXPORTS,GANAPAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARM

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

demonetization period and debit transactions to the tune of\nRs.30,87,40,537 / - were made by the assessee firm.\nThe above information suggests that income chargeable to tax in\nthis case for theAY 2017-18 has escaped assessment as per the provisions\nof the Act, for which a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued vide DIN and\nNotice

NIMMANA NARASIMHARAO,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

Bench: Us:

demonetization period as having been sourced out of his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 9. Thereafter, the AO observed that though the return of income filed by the assessee was to be treated as invalid, but a perusal of Part ‘A’ of his profit & loss account for the subject year revealed that he had disclosed total receipts

DWARAMPUDI KRSS SUBBIREDDY L/R OF DWARAMPUDI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

demonetization period made cash deposits of Rs. 10 lacs in his aforementioned bank account. Thereafter, the A.O., vide his notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, called upon Smt. Dwarampudi Bullamma (supra) to furnish information regarding the source of the cash deposits made by the assessee (since deceased) in his bank account. In reply, it was submitted

RAMYA VADLAMUDI,GUDIWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.72/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramya Vadlamudi Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-154, Opp. E-Seva Ward-2 Rajendra Nagar Gudiwada Gudiwada, Krishna Dist. [Pan : Ajnpv4972A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

demonetization period at Rs.26,93,000/- should not be treated as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBA for A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has not availed the opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits so made and hence, the AO treated the cash credits / deposits as undisclosed income of the assessee for the F.Y.2016-17, relevant to the A.Y.2017-18 and accordingly brought

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period. In the online responses filed by the assessee in response to the information called for by the Ld. AO in relation to cash deposits, the assessee claimed the deposits as a receipt of gifts, personal savings and sale proceeds of the property. Subsequently, a detailed show cause notice U/s. 142(1) was issued calling for details / evidence