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)

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,22,29,000/- representing cash deposits made in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. 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

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,22,29,000/- representing cash deposits made in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. 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

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,22,29,000/- representing cash deposits made in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. Section

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

22", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee, an individual, reported income from salary, capital gains, and other sources for AY 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee traded in penny stocks, claimed bogus long-term capital gains, and made investments through shell companies, leading to additions under various sections. The assessee's group also faced a search

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

22", "summary": {"facts": "During a search and seizure operation in 2011, it was noticed that the assessee and family members traded in stocks and claimed exemption under Section 10(38). The AO suspected penny stock trading where prices were artificially inflated, and such transactions were considered accommodation entries. Additions were made under Section 68

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the CIT(A. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer( AO) found that the assessee is a partnership firm having 8 partners with Sri Ch.Mahankali as the main partner. All the partners together have contributed the share capital of Rs.2,25,50,000/- during the impugned

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 43B of the Act for Rs. 68,10,031/-. Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans. Ld. CIT(A) also by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hindustan shipyard limited (supra) deleted the additions made on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 43B of the Act for Rs. 68,10,031/-. Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans. Ld. CIT(A) also by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hindustan shipyard limited (supra) deleted the additions made on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 43B of the Act for Rs. 68,10,031/-. Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans. Ld. CIT(A) also by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hindustan shipyard limited (supra) deleted the additions made on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund

KRISHNA PRABHAS AGRO OILS PRIVATE LIMITED,MAREDUBAKA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAKINADA

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

22,00,000/- 3. 13.05.2016 RTGS Rs. 3,74,755/- Total Rs. 41,74,755/- 4. The assessee company, to fortify its aforesaid claim, submitted before the AO the copies of ledger accounts, bank statements, CST invoices, Form C, Form 16A, and other supporting documentary evidence. The assessee company clarified that the subject receipts were duly recorded in its “books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. APOORVA SAROVAR, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.181/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Dcit, Apoorva Sarovar, Central Circle-2, Vs. Kurnool – 518 004. Guntur – 522 004. State Of Andhra Pradesh. State Of Andhra Pradesh. Pan Abefa4123B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca For Revenue : Sri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, V.P. :

22,10,605/- and a closing stock of Rs.28,77,500/-. Therefore, there was a difference of Rs.3,46,24,374/- which was added by the Assessing Officer for the year under 5 ITA.No.181/VIZ./2025 consideration. The learned CIT(A) has restricted the said addition by taking the profit element @ 12% of the unaccounted/undeclared turnover. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought\nPage

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO, NELLORE

22,04,0000/- which is added to\nthe details of cheque payments made towards the purchase of land.\nPage. No 5\nJanuary\n2015\nశ్రీజయనామసం||, ఉత్తరాయణం\nశిశిర ఋతువు, మాఘమాసము\nగురువారము/THURSDAY\nSunrise 6-45 a.m.\nOm Namo Venkatesava\n2.1.3-32\n6 σ.πο. 11-44\n3.2.6-24\n22\nSunset 6-05 p.m.\nwariter 7085\nమెత్రము\nchelana\n11,40000-00\nParen wreso

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

10,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act as not explained. 22. Even before us, Ld. AR has not furnished any documentary evidences regarding the sources of cash gifts received by the four members of the family for the purpose of investment in the assessee company. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the investment by the four individual

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

10,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act as not explained. 22. Even before us, Ld. AR has not furnished any documentary evidences regarding the sources of cash gifts received by the four members of the family for the purpose of investment in the assessee company. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the investment by the four individual

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

section 68 of the Act. On a perusal of the record, we find that the assessee company had during the subject year received unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 6,58,84,000/-. On being called upon to substantiate the genuineness of the loan transactions, the assessee company had submitted the confirmation letters along with supporting documentary evidence 21 Ranar

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIKAS KUMAR CHHAJER, VIZIANAGARAM

Bench: Us:

22,76,960/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 8 Vikas Kumar Chhajer dated 21.03.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,96,16,800/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

22,04,0000/- which is added to\nthe details of cheque payments made towards the purchase of land.\nPage. No 5\nI.T.A.No.408/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.No.460/VIZ/2025\nDonakala Chenchu Narasimha Rao --\nJanuary\n2015\nSunrise 6-45 a.m.\nOm Namo Venkatesava\nSunset 6-05 p.m.\nwariter 7085\nchelana\n11,40000-00\nమెత్రము\nParen wreso\n11 30000-00 పంపినా.\nK.Pradeep-1 Wash در\n12796.000