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

Bench: Us:

68 of the Act. 9. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had vacated the impugned addition for more than one reason, viz., (i). that the statements of the third parties, viz. M/s. Jain LLP, Delhi, and M/s. JM Jain LLP, Delhi (along with the scanned copies of the excel sheets), which had formed the basis for making the impugned addition

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. In reply, the assessee company tried to impress upon the A.O. that it had received a genuine loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra). However, the claim of the assessee company did not find favour with the A.O for the reason, viz. (i). that Shri. Urvil A. Jani

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. In reply, the assessee company tried to impress upon the A.O. that it had received a genuine loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra). However, the claim of the assessee company did not find favour with the A.O for the reason, viz. (i). that Shri. Urvil A. Jani

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. In reply, the assessee company tried to impress upon the A.O. that it had received a genuine loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra). However, the claim of the assessee company did not find favour with the A.O for the reason, viz. (i). that Shri. Urvil A. Jani

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. In reply, the assessee company tried to impress upon the A.O. that it had received a genuine loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra). However, the claim of the assessee company did not find favour with the A.O for the reason, viz. (i). that Shri. Urvil A. Jani

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. In reply, the assessee company tried to impress upon the A.O. that it had received a genuine loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra). However, the claim of the assessee company did not find favour with the A.O for the reason, viz. (i). that Shri. Urvil A. Jani

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills and admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery

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

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as income u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, after considering

ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

100% deduction U/s. 35(1)&(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATINS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

100% deduction U/s. 35(1)&(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

100. Thus submitted that the assessee has rightly explained the nature of receipt and the amount of receipt during the course of recording the statement u/s 131 of the Act and subsequently in his reply. Therefore, the Ld.AR argued that it is incorrect for the AO to assume that the entire gross amount is profit of the company. The amounts

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

100. Thus submitted that the assessee has rightly explained the nature of receipt and the amount of receipt during the course of recording the statement u/s 131 of the Act and subsequently in his reply. Therefore, the Ld.AR argued that it is incorrect for the AO to assume that the entire gross amount is profit of the company. The amounts

KANDULA RANGA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.90/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Kandula Ranga Reddy, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Altpk 9573 C Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 27/07/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

section 68 which is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 7. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued stating that at the time of recording statement U/s. 132(4) of the Act on 06/12/2017, the assessee declared

CH. VENKATA RAMI REDDY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE, ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blech. Venkata Rami Reddy, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), D.No. 54-19-22C, Vijayawada. Flat No. 501, Royal Enclave, Jayaprakashnagar, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Pan No. Ahgpc 7572 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito, Ward-2(3), Vs. Ch. Venkata Rami Reddy, Vijayawada. D.No. 54-19-22C, Flat No. 501, Royal Enclave, Jayaprakashnagar, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Pan No. Ahgpc 7572 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

100/- towards sundry creditors and asked the assessee to file confirmation letters. The assessee has not filed any confirmation letters before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the entire amount in the hands of the assessee. 8. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not filed any evidence, therefore, he confirmed the order

POOSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,531 4,38,16,100 2008-09 1,50,048 3,78,47,370 2009-10 2,25,880 4,82,10,079 2010-11 7,75,530 4,04,60,410 2011-12 15,99,084 3,07,56,629 2012-13 15,51,226 82,46,920 2.1 During the course of survey, incriminating material

POOSARLA SUBHASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,531 4,38,16,100 2008-09 1,50,048 3,78,47,370 2009-10 2,25,880 4,82,10,079 2010-11 7,75,530 4,04,60,410 2011-12 15,99,084 3,07,56,629 2012-13 15,51,226 82,46,920 2.1 During the course of survey, incriminating material

ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PUSARLA SUBASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,531 4,38,16,100 2008-09 1,50,048 3,78,47,370 2009-10 2,25,880 4,82,10,079 2010-11 7,75,530 4,04,60,410 2011-12 15,99,084 3,07,56,629 2012-13 15,51,226 82,46,920 2.1 During the course of survey, incriminating material

POOSARLA SUBHASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,531 4,38,16,100 2008-09 1,50,048 3,78,47,370 2009-10 2,25,880 4,82,10,079 2010-11 7,75,530 4,04,60,410 2011-12 15,99,084 3,07,56,629 2012-13 15,51,226 82,46,920 2.1 During the course of survey, incriminating material

ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PUSARLA SUBASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,531 4,38,16,100 2008-09 1,50,048 3,78,47,370 2009-10 2,25,880 4,82,10,079 2010-11 7,75,530 4,04,60,410 2011-12 15,99,084 3,07,56,629 2012-13 15,51,226 82,46,920 2.1 During the course of survey, incriminating material