ZOYEB HYDERABADWALA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.433/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Zoyeb Hyderabadwala V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 27-32-9, Ground Floor Direct Taxes Building 75 Feet Road Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam - 530001 Besides Gayatri College Mvp Colony [Pan: Aaapz3387M] Visakhapatnam - 530017 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

133(6) of the Act on 06.01.2021. After careful analysis of the submission of the parties, Ld.AO observed that the assessee has not proved the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.433/VIZ/2024 Zoyeb Hyderabadwala unsecured loans were received. Therefore, the Ld. AO proceeded to frame the assessment by making the following additions

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)

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 50411100001200 37058 33789 52318000 2. Indian Overseas Bank Park Road

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KAKINADA vs. SUDHA AGRO OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, G.RAGAMPETA

sections": [ "250", "148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68" ], "issues": "Whether the amount received by the assessee from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP UNION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

sections": [ "143(3)", "142(1)", "68", "80P(2)(d)", "69C", "133(6)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the cash deposits during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

6\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

6\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

6\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

6\nI.T.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

133(6) to the Bank and ascertained that the total cash deposits of Rs. 1,77,17,320/- were made in during the year and Rs. 1,18,000/-were made in specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetization period. The AO noticed that the assessee declared turnover of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in his return of income

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

6\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

6\nI.T.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11. The Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing