DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

reassessing the unabated assessment on the basis of material received from the other sources and can proceed under section 148. The decision does not support the contentions raised that Section 148 is rendered redundant if Section 153C is to be resorted to in the facts of the present case. 36. The Single Bench of this Court in the case

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

BTHINA 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

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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Ld.A.R. accordingly argued that the assessment made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and the additions made on account of bogus purchases and the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in the assessment made u/s 143(3) required to be deleted. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of A.P. and Telangana

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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Ld.A.R. accordingly argued that the assessment made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and the additions made on account of bogus purchases and the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in the assessment made u/s 143(3) required to be deleted. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of A.P. and Telangana

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)

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

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

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

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

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,KHANDAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, THANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs.8,57,883/-. 3 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO holding that the amounts borrowed

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM ,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, , TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs.8,57,883/-. 3 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO holding that the amounts borrowed

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs.8,57,883/-. 3 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO holding that the amounts borrowed

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, 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