BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131(1A) of the assessee or any other person/ appraisal report of the Investigation Wing of the Department/ materials on hand with the Department at the time of initiation of search or material evidences gathered were placed for its verification and the same were duly verified and/or examined by him as mandated under section 153D. In the absence of compliance

BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131(1A) of the assessee or any other person/ appraisal report of the Investigation Wing of the Department/ materials on hand with the Department at the time of initiation of search or material evidences gathered were placed for its verification and the same were duly verified and/or examined by him as mandated under section 153D. In the absence of compliance

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131(1A) of the Act was recorded from Shri Lalam Arjuna Rao, Managing Partner of Shri Siridi Sai Agencies on 31.10.2016, who stated that Shri Siridi Sai Agencies is an intermediary agency, supplying milk in bulk milk tankers to M/s Visakha Milk Products Private Ltd. He further stated that he was not aware of the fixation of the prices

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA vs. CHAGANTIPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NOH957, CHAGANTIPADU VILLAGE,

reassessment. The Faceless Scheme,\n2022, though framed under section 151A, consciously omits proceedings\nrelating to inquiry and order under section 148A from its scope.\nConsequently, such proceedings continue to vest with the jurisdictional\nAssessing Officer. Since the notice under section 148 is a direct and\nconsequential outcome of the order passed under section 148A(d), it\nnecessarily follows that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

131(1A) were issued to both the assessee and also her husband and it was he who had produced the books of account on behalf of the assessee and had also accepted the fact of bogus purchases made so as to claim input tax credit. 4 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,65,247/- without

SEELAMSETTY BALAJI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 (AP) has clearly held as follows: -\n“Considering the background in notifying the (E-Assessment Scheme of Income\nEscaping Assessment Scheme, 2022) notified by the Government of India on\n29.03.2022, and in the light of the decisions of various High Courts stated supra\nand upon careful consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel\nappearing on either side

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

131/- with the D.C.C.BANK, RAYAVARAM. Since the deduction\nunder section 80P of the Act is available only for the profits and gains of the\nbusiness of assessee (providing credit facilities to the members), the said\ndeduction is not available to the interest income which is in the nature of 'other\nincome' or 'income from other sources'. Accordingly show-cause notice

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 148, the previous under assessment stands set aside and the AO has not only the jurisdiction but is also duty bound to levy tax on the entire income which has escaped assessment during the course of original assessment. In the case of CWT vs. D.R. Wadera Lit-I of HansrajWadera, reported in (2000) 163 CTR 251 (Delhi), the Honourable

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 148, the previous under assessment stands set aside and the AO has not only the jurisdiction but is also duty bound to levy tax on the entire income which has escaped assessment during the course of original assessment. In the case of CWT vs. D.R. Wadera Lit-I of HansrajWadera, reported in (2000) 163 CTR 251 (Delhi), the Honourable

ANUMOLU AVNASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

reassessed by the Ld.AO with respect to the non-abated assessment for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that these grounds raised by the assessee do not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. Having dismissed the legal grounds we now proceed to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. With

ANUMOLU AVNASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

reassessed by the Ld.AO with respect to the non-abated assessment for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that these grounds raised by the assessee do not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. Having dismissed the legal grounds we now proceed to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. With

ANUMOLU AVNASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

reassessed by the Ld.AO with respect to the non-abated assessment for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that these grounds raised by the assessee do not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. Having dismissed the legal grounds we now proceed to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. With

ANUMOLU AVNASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

reassessed by the Ld.AO with respect to the non-abated assessment for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that these grounds raised by the assessee do not have legs to stand and hence dismissed. Having dismissed the legal grounds we now proceed to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. With

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

131 (Kerala HC) and GMR energy Ltd (Karnataka HC) (ITA No. 358 of 2018). 4. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee – M/s. ATR Warehousing Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam – engaged in the business of warehousing filed its return of income