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

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

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

68,100/- on 17-12-2016 & Rs.4,34,850/-\non 11-01-2017 by the A P Civil Supplies Department. 'However, in his letter,\nthe assessee stated that the net income received from paddy sales was\nRs.11,00,220/-. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that the entire paddy\nPage No. 6\nwas sold to AP Civil

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

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 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

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

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also observed difference in commission of sales\namounting to Rs. 10,67,285/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. Further Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has claimed Rs.95,42,395/-\nas handling charges in the Profit & Loss

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

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

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as\nincome u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order\nof the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction\nu/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A).\n3. 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