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

Bench: Us:

undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act. 7 Nimmana Narasimharao 10. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: 8 Nimmana Narasimharao 9 Nimmana Narasimharao 11. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order

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)

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.19 crores for the A.Y. 2010-11 to 2017-18. The Ld.DR through written submissions, reiterated that based on the statement recorded by Sri Saragadam Venkata Ramana, Managing Director of the assessee company u/s 132(4) of the Act and also based on the seized material, 8 I.T.A. No.237 & 239/Viz/2020 & CO No.20&21/Viz/2023

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

u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 14/3/2014 and 10/04/2014 that Sri P. Sankara Rao voluntarily disclosed the undisclosed income in the capacity of PallaSimhachalam (HUF). It is also observed that the AO of the assessee and the 7 searched party are the same. The argument of the Ld. DR that a separate satisfaction note is not required since

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

u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 14/3/2014 and 10/04/2014 that Sri P. Sankara Rao voluntarily disclosed the undisclosed income in the capacity of PallaSimhachalam (HUF). It is also observed that the AO of the assessee and the 7 searched party are the same. The argument of the Ld. DR that a separate satisfaction note is not required since

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

u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 14/3/2014 and 10/04/2014 that Sri P. Sankara Rao voluntarily disclosed the undisclosed income in the capacity of PallaSimhachalam (HUF). It is also observed that the AO of the assessee and the 7 searched party are the same. The argument of the Ld. DR that a separate satisfaction note is not required since

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

u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 14/3/2014 and 10/04/2014 that Sri P. Sankara Rao voluntarily disclosed the undisclosed income in the capacity of PallaSimhachalam (HUF). It is also observed that the AO of the assessee and the 7 searched party are the same. The argument of the Ld. DR that a separate satisfaction note is not required since

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

undisclosed income. In reply, the assessee admitted that she had taxable income and submitted a working as per which her total taxable income for the subject year was disclosed at Rs. 12,41,770/- with a consequential tax liability of Rs. 3,73,754/- (after claiming TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

undisclosed income. In reply, the assessee admitted that she had taxable income and submitted a working as per which her total taxable income for the subject year was disclosed at Rs. 12,41,770/- with a consequential tax liability of Rs. 3,73,754/- (after claiming TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

undisclosed income. In reply, the assessee admitted that she had taxable income and submitted a working as per which her total taxable income for the subject year was disclosed at Rs. 12,41,770/- with a consequential tax liability of Rs. 3,73,754/- (after claiming TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee

USHA RANI CHEBROLU,GUNTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.532/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Usha Rani Chebrolu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abmpc8555B Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, the Ld. AO made the following additions ie., (i) Addition U/s.56 of the Act on account of undisclosed interest of Rs. 3,24,589/- treating the same as income from other sources and (ii) Addition of Rs. 51,93,088/- on account of unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and determined the total

SATYANARAYANA KODURU,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

u/s 144B and 151A of the Act. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (ITO Ward 1, Gudiwada) lacked authority and competence in issuing the said notices. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the order passed thereunder are vold ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,16,000/- made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. L V BEACH CITY PROPERTY PROMOTERS, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 V. L.V. Beach City Property Promoters 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 3/Viz/2024 [आयकअपीलसं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)] L.V. Beach City Property Promoters V. Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri M.V. Prasad, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

undisclosed income for the A.Y. 2018-19. 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the legal issue stating that alleged seized material found in the premise of other persons cannot be a reason

CHODAY JANAKI RAMAYYA CHOWDARY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings as void ab inito in as much as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as against the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 4. Without prejudice to Ground no 2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.39,37,000 made u/s

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 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 (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in 4. sustaining the addition of Rs.11,79,160 made by the assessing officer towards unexplained payment of credit card bills. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in 5. sustaining

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

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