GODDI KANNA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

129, 133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

SURYANARAYANA VANGAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

129, 133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

GODDI KANNA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

129, 133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

SURYANARAYANA VANGAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

129, 133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

VENUGOPAL NIMMAGADDA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VIJAYAWADA

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.212/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Venugopal Nimmagadda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-10-29, Flat No.101 Ward-3(3) Anu Heights, 2Nd Lane Vijayawada Srinagar Colony Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Adapn2791A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 147 of the Act have formulation and addition of Rs.6,29,129/- and as confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC, DELHI may be VOID and hence the IMPUGNED ORDER under Sec.250 may be NONEST IN LAW. 7. For the above reasons and other reasons which may be advanced during the course of hearing of the appeal, it is humbly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

129 to 131 of APB), vide her letter dated 23.11.2015 filed with the A.O in the course of the original assessment proceedings, disclosed all the primary facts regarding the purchase of agricultural land at Gangur (Page 133- 135 of APB), she was not required to give any further assistance to the AO by disclosure of other facts. Rather

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(C) and called for the explanation of the assessee, who in turn stated that the entire packing material was purchased by the assessee with proper bills and vouchers and there was no contract. Further, the assessee also stated that Central Excise and VAT also was collected by the vendor