VENKATA RAMANAIAH KOPPARAPU,SATTEPALLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.317/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Ramanaiah Kopparapu V. Income Tax Officer C.R. Buildings D.No. 18-9-10/2, Atchampeta Road Kannavarithota, Guntur – 522001 Near Sisuvihar, Sattenapalli-522403 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Dhmpk6477H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee reiterated the similar submissions made before the Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts that the assessee has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim, confirmed

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)

unexplained money under section 69A and determined his income vide order passed under section 147 r.w section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 05.07.2023 at Rs. 9,84,06,180. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed

BHARGAV RAM MUNAGAPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained money. The AO's order was upheld by the CIT(A), leading to the present appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

unexplained money u/sec.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 08.12.2019 passed 8 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,15,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

unexplained money u/sec.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 08.12.2019 passed 8 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,15,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

unexplained money u/sec.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 08.12.2019 passed 8 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,15,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

unexplained money u/sec.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 08.12.2019 passed 8 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,15,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the learned

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 money

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 as the assessee had not filed its return of income. The AO proceeded to determine the income by treating cash deposits and withdrawals as unexplained money

ASHOK RUDRARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

unexplained money under section 69A is unjustified and invalid and not as per the provisions of section 69A (Additional ground) 9. The notice issued under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 is invalid as the same is issued by the Jurisdictional AO as against Faceless AO as per the scheme framed under section 151A and notified on 29.03.2022 10. The notice under

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

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 any submissions in support of\nthe grounds of appeal.\n7. On being aggrieved

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

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 in support of\nthe grounds of appeal.\n7. On being aggrieved, assessee filed

NIMMANA NARASIMHARAO,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

Bench: Us:

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 9. Thereafter, the AO observed that though the return of income filed by the assessee was to be treated as invalid, but a perusal of Part ‘A’ of his profit & loss account for the subject year revealed that he had disclosed total receipts of Rs.4,73,463/-., viz., (i) gross receipts from consultancy

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 48,19,517/- was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following revised grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary

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)

unexplained. The money has been received by the appellant as a fiducially and not as a beneficiary. 4.4 In view of the facts discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the addition made by the AO under Section 69A is not based on adequate evidence and hence requires to be deleted.” 5. In the result appeal for Assessment

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS MARY JOSEPH SNEHALAYA,MANGALAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

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

money u/s 69A, addition of Rs. 2,48,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 30,470/- as income from other sources. Further, Assessing Officer levied a tax of Rs. 1,31,54,351/-. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after

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)

Money under section 69A of the Act : Rs. 5,64,00,000 2. Unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act : Rs. 1,50,00,000 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee challenged notice issued under section 148 of the Act and also

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested 5 I.T.A. No.130/Viz/2024 to 134/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18 Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, Guntur reopening