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:

131(1A) were issued to both the assessee and also her husband and it was he who had produced the books of account on behalf of the assessee and had also accepted the fact of bogus purchases made so as to claim input tax credit. 4 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,65,247/- without

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

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

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

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)

131 of APB), vide her letter dated 23.11.2015 filed with the A.O in the course of the original assessment proceedings, disclosed all the primary facts regarding the purchase of agricultural land at Gangur (Page 133- 135 of APB), she was not required to give any further assistance to the AO by disclosure of other facts. Rather

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131(1A) of the Act was recorded from Shri Lalam Arjuna Rao, Managing Partner of Shri Siridi Sai Agencies on 31.10.2016, who stated that Shri Siridi Sai Agencies is an intermediary agency, supplying milk in bulk milk tankers to M/s Visakha Milk Products Private Ltd. He further stated that he was not aware of the fixation of the prices

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATINS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field

ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PALLA SIMHACHALAM (HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131(1A) and submitted vide Q.No.3 that the undisclosed income belong to PallaSimhachalam(HUF). The Ld. DR further submitted that based on the voluntary admission by the searched person Sri PallaSankara Rao notice u/s. 153C was issued to PallaSimhachalam(HUF) by the AO since the AO being the same Assessing Officer for both the searched person and the assessee

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM ,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, , TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs.8,57,883/-. 3 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO holding that the amounts borrowed

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs.8,57,883/-. 3 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO holding that the amounts borrowed

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,KHANDAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, THANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs.8,57,883/-. 3 ITA No.160/Viz/2020, 131&157/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Progressive Poultry Farm, Peravali 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO holding that the amounts borrowed

NALLURU CONSTRUCTIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.646/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Nalluru Constructions, The Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada–520 010. Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh Pan Aaifn5778N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 आदेश/Order

3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 which read as under: 1. “The notice issued u/s 148 dt. 03-04-2022 is barred by limitation as per section 149(1)(b) read with the proviso thereto, having been issued beyond the prescribed period of six years. Consequently, the reassessment order