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)

68 of the Act is not fulfilled addition made by the Assessing Officer be upheld. 27. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 28. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs. 20,82,145/- Page No. 14 I.T.A.Nos

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)

68 of the Act is not fulfilled addition made by the Assessing Officer be upheld. 27. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 28. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs. 20,82,145/- Page No. 14 I.T.A.Nos

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

37 & 38 relates to estimation disallowances @10% on the\nbogus purchases of Rs.20,49,768/-.\n29. On this issue, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO.\n30. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. AO.\n31. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record.\nIt is the contention

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

10,68,283/- and hence the difference arising out of the suppression of sales amounting to Rs.11,62,88,617/- was brought to the notice before the Directors, who confirmed that there is suppression of sales during the F.Y.2018-19. Subsequently, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.11.2022 to show

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 are general in nature, no adjudication is required, therefore, same are dismissed. 37. Ground

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 are general in nature, no adjudication is required, therefore, same are dismissed. 37. Ground

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 are general in nature, no adjudication is required, therefore, same are dismissed. 37. Ground

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 36. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 are general in nature, no adjudication is required, therefore, same are dismissed. 37. Ground