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

70,373/- by\ntreating an amount of Rs.2,00,52,053/- as unexplained 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

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

70,373/- by\ntreating an amount of Rs.2,00,52,053/- as unexplained 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

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)

70,30,000 + Stamp Value Rs. 5,97,780/-) which was sourced from viz., (i) unsecured loan raised from Sri M. Balamanmadha Rao on 27/03/2013: Rs. 32,30,000/-; and (ii). part payment (made in cash), which in turn was sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land that was sold by her vide Document Nos. 2685/2013 and 2684/2013

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

70,373/- by\ntreating an amount of Rs.2,00,52,053/- as unexplained 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

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

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

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

70 to 144 of the paper book) has provided the details with respect to additions to fixed assets during the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 along with the supporting documents. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that there is no any fresh material in the possession of the AO for invoking the provisions of section 147

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

70 to 144 of the paper book) has provided the details with respect to additions to fixed assets during the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 along with the supporting documents. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that there is no any fresh material in the possession of the AO for invoking the provisions of section 147

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

70 to 144 of the paper book) has provided the details with respect to additions to fixed assets during the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 along with the supporting documents. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that there is no any fresh material in the possession of the AO for invoking the provisions of section 147

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

70 to 144 of the paper book) has provided the details with respect to additions to fixed assets during the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 along with the supporting documents. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that there is no any fresh material in the possession of the AO for invoking the provisions of section 147

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

70 to 144 of the paper book) has provided the details with respect to additions to fixed assets during the Financial Year 2004-05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 along with the supporting documents. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that there is no any fresh material in the possession of the AO for invoking the provisions of section 147

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

70,000/- in the SB account of Andhra Bank. Accordingly, on the basis of the information available, notice U/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 21/03/2022 with the prior approval of the competent authority. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 of the Act dated 07/04/2022 was issued electronically however, there was no response from the assessee. Subsequently, notice U/s

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 3. Succinctly Stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out certain financial transactions, viz., (i) Cash deposits/Time deposits in his bank account aggregating to Rs.1,28,45,700/-; and (ii) Receipt

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 3. Succinctly Stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out certain financial transactions, viz., (i) Cash deposits/Time deposits in his bank account aggregating to Rs.1,28,45,700/-; and (ii) Receipt

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

70,31,960/- and since the Chivatam Village is under the Municipal Limits of Tanuku Municipality, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that there is an “income escaping assessment” within the meaning

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS PVT LTD,ODISHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Bb-8 Area 7 & 8 Income Tax Office Civil Township, Rourkela – 769004 Direct Tax Building, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Odisha Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4800A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

70,738 under Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/VIZ/2023 M/s. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., section 35(2AB) of the Act. Assessing Officer also noticed that assessee has received a grant of Rs.50,00,000/- from DSIR during the year. Therefore, he concluded that assessee is eligible for deduction on the balance expenditure of Rs. 1,22,85,369/- [Rs.1