MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

70,373/- by\ntreating an amount of Rs.2,00,52,053/- as unexplained money under section\n69A of the Act.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the\nPage. No 3\nassessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

70,373/- by\ntreating an amount of Rs.2,00,52,053/- as unexplained money under section\n69A of the Act.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the\nassessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make any submissions

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

70,373/- by\ntreating an amount of Rs.2,00,52,053/- as unexplained money under section\n69A of the Act.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the\nPage. No 3\nassessee, exparte as the assessee failed to make

VENKATA LAKSHMI PADMAVATHI UPPALAPU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA

70,400/-.\n3. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of\nthe Act with the prior approval of the competent authority. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee\nhad filed her return of income on 19.08.2021 declaring total income of\nRs.79,620/- for A.Y. 2013-14. Statutory

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. MOTHER THERESSA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHAITANYANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income.” Page No. 6 I.T.A. Nos. 163&229/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 01/VIZ/2024 Mother Theressa Educational Society 8. He argued that the assessee does not fulfill any of the conditions and hence there is no under-reporting of any income. Further, he also referred to Sub-section

MOTHER THERESSA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,AMALAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income.” Page No. 6 I.T.A. Nos. 163&229/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 01/VIZ/2024 Mother Theressa Educational Society 8. He argued that the assessee does not fulfill any of the conditions and hence there is no under-reporting of any income. Further, he also referred to Sub-section

NARASIMHA RAO JAMMIGUMPULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

70,000/- in the SB account of Andhra Bank. Accordingly, on the basis of the information available, notice U/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 21/03/2022 with the prior approval of the competent authority. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 of the Act dated 07/04/2022 was issued electronically however, there was no response from the assessee. Subsequently, notice

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)

70,30,000 + Stamp Value Rs. 5,97,780/-) which was sourced from viz., (i) unsecured loan raised from Sri M. Balamanmadha Rao on 27/03/2013: Rs. 32,30,000/-; and (ii). part payment (made in cash), which in turn was sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land that was sold by her vide Document Nos. 2685/2013 and 2684/2013

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS PVT LTD,ODISHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Bb-8 Area 7 & 8 Income Tax Office Civil Township, Rourkela – 769004 Direct Tax Building, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Odisha Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4800A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

70,738 under Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/VIZ/2023 M/s. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., section 35(2AB) of the Act. Assessing Officer also noticed that assessee has received a grant of Rs.50,00,000/- from DSIR during the year. Therefore, he concluded that assessee is eligible for deduction on the balance expenditure of Rs. 1,22,85,369/- [Rs.1

AARDY ENGINEERING INNOVATION PVT LTD,ODISHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Bb-8 Area 7 & 8 Income Tax Office Civil Township, Rourkela – 769004 Direct Tax Building, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Odisha Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4800A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

70,738 under Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/VIZ/2023 M/s. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., section 35(2AB) of the Act. Assessing Officer also noticed that assessee has received a grant of Rs.50,00,000/- from DSIR during the year. Therefore, he concluded that assessee is eligible for deduction on the balance expenditure of Rs. 1,22,85,369/- [Rs.1

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

70,31,960/- and since the Chivatam Village is under the Municipal Limits of Tanuku Municipality, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that there is an “income escaping assessment” within the meaning

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021, had culminated into the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, it is the order passed by the Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. CIT(A), dated 29.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai /10553/2016-17 which alone for the subject

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Ld.AO to tax the gross profit @ 30% of the total deficit stock. Further, with respect to excess

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Ld.AO to tax the gross profit @ 30% of the total deficit stock. Further, with respect to excess

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

70 18,68,842 Total 1,05,77,853 16. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not entitled to net off of the excess stock with deficit stock. The Ld. DR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Ld.AO to tax the gross profit @ 30% of the total deficit stock. Further, with respect to excess