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:

u/s 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, the CIT(A) for the said reason had refrained from adjudicating the specific grounds of appeal, i.e., Grounds of appeal No(s). 1 to 3, based on which the assessee company had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for framing the assessment without complying with

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:

u/s 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, the CIT(A) for the said reason had refrained from adjudicating the specific grounds of appeal, i.e., Grounds of appeal No(s). 1 to 3, based on which the assessee company had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for framing the assessment without complying with

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:

u/s 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, therefore, the CIT(A) for the said reason had refrained from adjudicating the specific grounds of appeal, i.e., Grounds of appeal No(s). 1 to 3, based on which the assessee company had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for framing the assessment without complying with

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n27.03.2022.\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee being a company,\nwhich is engaged in trading of steel bars, TMT etc., filed its return of income\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.44,51,000/-.\nIt was noticed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated\n27.03.2022.\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee being a company,\nwhich is engaged in trading of steel bars, TMT etc., filed its return of income\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.44,51,000/-.\nIt was noticed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

reassessment was completed by treating the transaction as bogus purchase transaction. 4.5 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has contradicting itself on the issue of bogus purchase transaction. On one hand, the assessee has stated that the transaction were solely aimed at receiving inventory back from Steel Exchange India Limited

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:

bogus. Also, the CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 194Q had been made applicable from 01/07/2021, i.e., deduction of tax at source on the payments made against the purchases, and the same did not apply to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2019-20. 9. Apart from that, we find that

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]

bogus LTCG/STCL and Business loss entries through various penny scrips. M/s.Steel Exchange India Ltd was identified as one of such scrip and the assessee was identified as one of beneficiaries who entered into transaction in the said scrip to the tune of Rs.3,87,36,001/-. Subsequently, notice under section 148 dated 28.07.2022 was duly issued. In response, assessee filed

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)

purchase agreement dated 02.09.2015 and an image of a handwritten scribbling were seized. The “agreement” recorded the transfer of 1,06,900 shares by the assessee at Rs. 657 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,33,300. 4. On the other hand, the seized scribbling contained entries which the department construed as cash payments to certain