VANGAPANDU PREM KUMAR,,KAKINADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.269/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-2015) Vangapandu Prem Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.42-3-1 Ward-I, Kakinada Sri Venkateswara Garments Tilak Street, Main Road Kakinada [Pan : Abxpv9304L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U.Mini Chandran, Sr.Ar 23.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

68 in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account are unsustainable. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not bring any other decision to support the revenue’s contention that the cash deposits made in the bank account to be brought into the purview of section

GHANTA PUNNA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account are unsustainable. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not bring any other decision to support the revenue’s contention that the cash deposits made in the bank account to be brought into the purview of section

ASHA SANGHAVI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Asha Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-22-12 Ward-2 Nandepu Heights Rajamahendravaram T.Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Awfps2816R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

68 in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account are unsustainable. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not bring any other decision to support the revenue’s contention that the cash deposits made in the bank account to be brought into the purview of section

DIRISALA BALA MURALI,PALACOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Dirisala Bala Murali Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.15-8-12/2 Ward-I Shavukarpet Palakol Palakol, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Asfpd4074J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita Nos.10090 & 10094/2017-18 Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2011-12. 2

68 in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account are unsustainable. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not bring any other decision to support the revenue’s contention that the cash deposits made in the bank account to be brought into the purview of section

DEEKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO (HUF),TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Bench: Us:

deposits of Rs.1,11,27,529/- as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/-. Grounds No. 1 and 11 are general grounds. 6. The Revenue has raised four (2,3,4 & 5) grounds regarding the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) for Rs. 2.16 Crs. 7. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has earned salary income of Rs. 2.16 Crs from Nepal and has made cash

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/-. Grounds No. 1 and 11 are general grounds. 6. The Revenue has raised four (2,3,4 & 5) grounds regarding the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) for Rs. 2.16 Crs. 7. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has earned salary income of Rs. 2.16 Crs from Nepal and has made cash

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/-. Grounds No. 1 and 11 are general grounds. 6. The Revenue has raised four (2,3,4 & 5) grounds regarding the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) for Rs. 2.16 Crs. 7. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has earned salary income of Rs. 2.16 Crs from Nepal and has made cash

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

68,154/-. Grounds No. 1 and 11 are general grounds. 6. The Revenue has raised four (2,3,4 & 5) grounds regarding the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) for Rs. 2.16 Crs. 7. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has earned salary income of Rs. 2.16 Crs from Nepal and has made cash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

cash deposits during the demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act of Rs.1,68,54,000/-. 22. Before us, the ld.DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs. 1,68,54,000/- under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP UNION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

cash deposits arising from credit sales, and the difference in payment to GCMMFL was due to a wrongly recorded and reversed entry. The Tribunal also ruled that interest income earned from a cooperative bank by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "142(1)", "68

VENKATESWARA RAO KOGANTI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

68,280/-.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under the\nE-assessment Scheme, 2019 to verify the issue of \"Cash deposit during\ndemonetization period\". Subsequently, statutory notices under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, C.O.s, filed by the assessee are dismissed

cash deposits during\nthe demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act of Rs.1,68,54,000/-.\n22. Before us, the ld.DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had\nmade the addition of Rs. 1,68,54,000/- under Section

SATHI MANGAYAMMA,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

cash deposits of Rs.20 lacs (SBNs) made by the assessee in her bank account during the demonetization period had rightly held that the same was sourced from her unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Ground of Appeal No.3 is dismissed. 9 Sathi Mangayamma 16. We shall now deal with the Ld. AR's claim that

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BLACKBURN FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deposited in its bank account on 05.01.2017, thus held the same as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act in the hands

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act, there should be books of account and in the said books of account there shall be cash credit and the same has not been explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposits

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

cash deposited were out of business receipts during the demonetization are liable to be rejected unless under specific conditions and circumstances. In view of this, I believe the action of the AO in bringing to tax, the unexplained money of Rs. 73,95,320/- u/s. 69A cannot be faulted. Hence, the grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition

THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

68 of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the customers having no PAN/Aadhar/KYC details: Rs.1,16,66,219/-, therefore, the AO had added the said amounts as unexplained cash credits under section