INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credits. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.11,62,080 made by the assessing officer u/s 69C of the Act towards alleged unexplained payment of commission. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 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, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

68,020/- for the subject year that was stated to be reflected in Form-26AS and allow the credit for the same, had upheld the additions made by the AO. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

reassessment proceedings under section 147, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries for purchases from certain suppliers. Despite the suppliers admitting to providing accommodation entries, the AO disallowed the entire purchases and transportation charges claimed by the assessee.", "held": "The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the disallowance to 8% of the bogus purchases

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

reassessment proceedings under section 147, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries for purchases from certain suppliers. The AO added the entire purchase amount and transportation charges as bogus. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of the bogus purchases.", "held": "The Tribunal considered that the AO had not doubted the assessee's books of accounts or sales

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast

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:

Section 68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast

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

section 69A of the Act: Rs. 28,82,633/-; (ii) addition of unexplained payment of credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of equity shares: Rs.1,68,552/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 68 are stringent in the case of credits. What the appellant needs to demonstrate is identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. Absence of any one of these elements will render the loan as unexplained and liable to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act. In the instant case, the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 68 are stringent in the case of credits. What the appellant needs to demonstrate is identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. Absence of any one of these elements will render the loan as unexplained and liable to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act. In the instant case, the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness

MUDUNURI VENKATA SUBBARAJU,WEST GODAVARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, 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.284/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mudunuri Venkata Subbaraju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 5-205/2, Dommeru Aayakar Bhavan, 35-29-2 Near Reliance Tower Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Gowthaminagar S.O. Andhra Pradesh Kovvur, West Godavari – 534350 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cupps3676D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

68,000/- of the Act. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee provided translated copies of sale deeds and stated that assessee has purchased agriculture lands from the proceeds obtained from sale of agriculture lands. Further, assessee has submitted his reply

A.TIRUPATHI RAYUDU(HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) amounting to Rs. 3,92,242/-.” Additional Ground of Appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the addition