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

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

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

NO 368 KOLAKALURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

business or operational income of the assessee; and (ii) that as the assessee-society had failed to file the return of income U/s. 139(1) of the Act, therefore, as per the “sixth proviso” to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act which mandates the filing of the return of income before the “due date” read with clause

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

business of executing contract works in the Government Departments like Irrigation, Public Health, Rural Water Supply and various Municipal Corporations as Special Class Contractor. The assessee-company filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,38,91,662/-. A survey U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in this case

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)

business of trading of steel had fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on the fake inward GST invoices issued by M/s. Hero Wiretex Ltd., on bogus purchases of Rs.4,24,70,696/-, reopened its case and passed an order under clause(d) of section 148A of the Act, dated 01/04/2022. Therefore, the JAO i.e., Income Tax Officer, Ward

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business loss of 4 Rs. 16,00,27,807/-. While the AO assessed the loss U/s. 143(3) vide order dated 24/12/2007 at Rs.13,19,98,520/-. The case was subsequently reopened u/s 147 and a notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in its reply dated 15/4/2010 requested

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business loss of 4 Rs. 16,00,27,807/-. While the AO assessed the loss U/s. 143(3) vide order dated 24/12/2007 at Rs.13,19,98,520/-. The case was subsequently reopened u/s 147 and a notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in its reply dated 15/4/2010 requested

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business loss of 4 Rs. 16,00,27,807/-. While the AO assessed the loss U/s. 143(3) vide order dated 24/12/2007 at Rs.13,19,98,520/-. The case was subsequently reopened u/s 147 and a notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in its reply dated 15/4/2010 requested

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business loss of 4 Rs. 16,00,27,807/-. While the AO assessed the loss U/s. 143(3) vide order dated 24/12/2007 at Rs.13,19,98,520/-. The case was subsequently reopened u/s 147 and a notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in its reply dated 15/4/2010 requested

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business loss of 4 Rs. 16,00,27,807/-. While the AO assessed the loss U/s. 143(3) vide order dated 24/12/2007 at Rs.13,19,98,520/-. The case was subsequently reopened u/s 147 and a notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in its reply dated 15/4/2010 requested

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

147\nr.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 26/02/2024 determining the total\nincome at Rs. 1,02,43,798/- which includes addition of Rs.\n1,02,35,080/- towards unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C of the Act\nand Rs. 8,718/- towards business income. Further, the Ld. AO also\ninitiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271AAC

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

Bench: Us:

business): Rs.1,73,463/-. The AO, observed that though the assessee had admitted the gross receipts from the aforesaid sources of income at Rs. 4,73,463/-, but his total cash deposits during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 in his bank account No.154712000000158 with IOB amounted to Rs.65,50,000/-. Thereafter, the AO rejected the assessee’s claim that

UPPALAPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,UPPALAPADU, GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 25.01.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited vs. ITO assessee society has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income

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)

business concerns through his bank account which are not CO No. 24/Viz/2025 Kanaparthy Suryaprakasarao vs ITO related to M/s. Sai Marine Exports Private Limited, without further verification. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,12,13,930/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act although the assessee has not explained the sources

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 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, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

business or profession: Rs.2,37,686/-; and (iii) interest income: Rs.62,445/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the same. Ostensibly, the assessee had assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for framing the assessment on multi facet grounds, viz., (i) issuance of notice under section

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case