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:

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company

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:

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company

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:

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TENALI vs. SURYAPRAKASARAO KANAPARTHY, BETHAPUDI, REPALLE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations, while for the appeal filed by the revenue having been rendered as academic in nature, is ...

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.239/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Suryaprakasarao Tenali. Kanaparthy, Bethapudi, Repalle, Bapatla. Pan: Dmqpk7509P (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash withdrawal constitutes income. The AO has also not established that when the credits in the bank account are all from the employer ie. Sai Marine Export Private Limited, then how the same can be treated as unexplained. The money has been received by the appellant as a fiducially and not as a beneficiary. 4.4 In view of the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

cash credits. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.11,62,080 made by the assessing officer u/s 69C of the Act towards alleged unexplained payment of commission. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that

MANCHUKONDA RAVI KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.171/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Manchukonda Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Manchukonda Vijaya Lakshmi Ward-1(1) Jewellery Visakhapatnam D.No.25-8-244 Main Road, Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan :Biypm4983M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained cash credits u/s 69A of the Act to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act on 21.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,14,23,380/-. 3 I.T.A. No.171/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 Manchukonda Ravi Kumar, Visakhapatnam 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of equity shares: Rs.1,68,552/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee aggrieved with the order

MUTHAVARAPU SRINIVASA BABU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

reassessment proceedings again notices were issued and duly served to the assessee. During the re-assessment proceedings, Ld. AO noticed from the record that the assessee had deposited cash in his SB account maintained with Swarna cooperative urban bank. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit. Further, it was noticed that the cash credit amounting

VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Cash Credit” if at all to be assessed and not under sec 69A. 11.2 The Ld AO as well as Ld CIT(A) has erred in not verifying the copy of registered sale deed by denying it as “unregistered” and deeming it as “Unexplained” without any evidence though assessee has provided, makes thesame fully explained and the assessee has discharged

GEDDA APPA RAO,UNDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Gedda Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Ward-1 Undi Bhimavaram [Pan : Axopg9721M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053170768(1) Dated 25.05.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-14. The Ao Reopened The Case U/S 147 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information With Respect To Cash Deposit In 2

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, received as ‘on-money’ on sale of plot and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 computing total taxable income at Rs.31,77,949/- on 11.12.2017. 3. On being aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SAI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 27 is allowed as indicated herein above

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

cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, no additions can be made by the Ld. AO for unabated assessments

SURYASRI POULTRY COMPLEX,KAPAVARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD_1,, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Suryasri Poultry Complex V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office D.No. 4-148, Rajanagaram Road Deepthi Towers Biccavolu Mandal, Kapavaram Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 East Godavari – 533343 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abgfs6509P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment proceedings are void-ab- initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,64,00,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits and credit

NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

reassessment proceedings under section 147 due to alleged non-filing of return and large cash credits in the assessee's bank account. The AO made additions on account of unexplained

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)

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 to tax u/s 69A of the Act under the head “other

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

unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 2,88,92,893/-\nand addition on account of interest income amounting to Rs.50,46,595/-.\n7. In its appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised an additional ground\nchallenging the completion of the assessment on the basis of a notice issued under\nsection 148 by the JAO. The Ld. CIT(A), vide impugned

SATYANARAYANA KODURU,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

unexplained cash deposits in bank account: Rs.32,30,000/-; (iv) addition of undisclosed salary received from NHAI: Rs.17,62,155/-; (v) 4 Satyanarayana Koduru vs. ITO addition of bank interest: Rs.1,95,140/-; and (vi) addition in respect of credit entries: Rs.56,92,845/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who partly allowed

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

credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal

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

credit based on the submission of the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Further, the Ld. AO has also made the following additions viz., (i) ROC Charges / Fees – Rs. 70,000/-; (ii) loss on sale of bogus fixed assets – Rs. 52,583/-; and (iii) Donations – Rs.52,583/-. On being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal