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

131/-. The assessee also submitted the date wise proof and the copies of the statements of Steel City Commodities. Therefore, argued that even if it is presumed that the deposits made in the bank 7 I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 Asha Sanghavi, Rajamahendravaram account required to be treated as unexplained cash credits, the same required to be set off against the loss

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

1 & 8 are general in nature, no adjudication is required and therefore same are dismissed. 48. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are relating to violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. We find that ld. CIT(A) after calling remand report and examined each and every issue independently, passed (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) the order, therefore

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

1 & 8 are general in nature, no adjudication is required and therefore same are dismissed. 48. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are relating to violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. We find that ld. CIT(A) after calling remand report and examined each and every issue independently, passed (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) the order, therefore

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

1 & 8 are general in nature, no adjudication is required and therefore same are dismissed. 48. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are relating to violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. We find that ld. CIT(A) after calling remand report and examined each and every issue independently, passed (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) the order, therefore

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

1 & 8 are general in nature, no adjudication is required and therefore same are dismissed. 48. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are relating to violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. We find that ld. CIT(A) after calling remand report and examined each and every issue independently, passed (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) the order, therefore

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

131(1)", "115BBE" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made as on-money payment for property purchase under Section 69 is sustainable, and whether cash loans treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

131 of the Act and the information obtained from the banks under section 133(6) of the Act noticed that assessee has deposited Specified Bank Notes (SBN) in the bank accounts during the demonetization period as follows: - Rajani Gold SBNs Deposits during Demonetisation Period Denominations SBNs S.No. Bank Branch A/c No. 500s 1000s Amount 1. Andhra Bank Satyanarayanapuram

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)

1) dated 22.06.2015 was issued and served on the assessee due to change in the incumbent. In response, assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared and filed submissions as called for from time to time. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.12.2015 and during the course of survey

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)

1) dated 22.06.2015 was issued and served on the assessee due to change in the incumbent. In response, assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared and filed submissions as called for from time to time. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.12.2015 and during the course of survey

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)

1) dated 22.06.2015 was issued and served on the assessee due to change in the incumbent. In response, assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared and filed submissions as called for from time to time. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.12.2015 and during the course of survey

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law.\n2.\nThe L.d. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the working of average price\nper egg at Rs 3.83, as done by the AO in the assessment order. The CIT(A)\nerred in directing the AO to recompute the average price

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

1, 5, 6 and 7 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 9. The other grounds relate to the addition made by the Revenue Authorities by disallowing the investment made by the various shareholders in the share capital and share premium of the assessee company as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. On this issue

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

1, 5, 6 and 7 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 9. The other grounds relate to the addition made by the Revenue Authorities by disallowing the investment made by the various shareholders in the share capital and share premium of the assessee company as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. On this issue

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BLACKBURN FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 27.09.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD., GUNTUR

1. The order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law.\n2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the working of average price\nper egg at Rs 3.83, as done by the AO in the assessment order. The CIT(A)\nerred in directing the AO to recompute the average price

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

1)&(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction

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

1)&(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction

SANDHI RAJA SEKHAR ,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 296/Viz/2024 (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sandhi Raja Sekhar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram. Ward-1, Pan: Axrps2387J Bhimavaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

131 of the Act were issued on 06/06/2017 requiring the assessee to appear on 13/06/2017. In response, the assessee’s Representative appeared and sought time for furnishing the return of income which was allowed upto 20/06/2017. On 20/06/2017 the assessee’s Representative has furnished a letter along with the return of income filed electronically