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

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, 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)

57,000/- in her return of income, therefore, CO. No. 08/Viz/2024 ITO vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding its cost of acquisition, held the entire amount of the sale consideration as the Short Term Capital Gains (for short, “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not quashing the assessment order passed by the assessing officer on the ground that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued within the time stipulated under the Act. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no.2

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that

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

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

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

57,242/- shall exclude while computing the actual gross profit as these two items are part of the business income and cannot be considered separately and therefore it is not correct to state that the Ld.AO did not consider the interest and commission while adopting the GP @ 1.85% on the assessee’s turnover. 6. The Ld. Pr.CIT is erred