MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide petition dated 02.01.2025 is hereby allowed.” 19. We are therefore of the considered view that various judicial pronouncements have held that only the profit element involved in the shortage of stock can be added to the total income of the assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide petition dated 02.01.2025 is hereby allowed.” 19. We are therefore of the considered view that various judicial pronouncements have held that only the profit element involved in the shortage of stock can be added to the total income of the assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide petition dated 02.01.2025 is hereby allowed.” 19. We are therefore of the considered view that various judicial pronouncements have held that only the profit element involved in the shortage of stock can be added to the total income of the assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,495/- instead of Rs.2,11,55,707/-. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 and additional legal ground raised vide petition dated 02.01.2025 is hereby allowed.” 19. We are therefore of the considered view that various judicial pronouncements have held that only the profit element involved in the shortage of stock can be added to the total income of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credits. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.11,62,080 made by the assessing officer u/s 69C of the Act towards alleged unexplained payment of commission. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

68,020/- for the subject year that was stated to be reflected in Form-26AS and allow the credit for the same, had upheld the additions made by the AO. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. REAL GROW EXIMS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHIMAVARAM

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

68 of the Act being the unexplained cash deposits made during the impugned assessment year and added it to the income returned by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Accordingly, the assessed income was determined at Rs.4,50,00,000/- against the NIL income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. NUTRIENT MARINE FOODS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

68 of the Act being the unexplained cash deposits made during the impugned assessment year and added it to the income returned by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Accordingly, the assessed income was determined at Rs.4,50,00,000/- against the NIL income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. GOLUGURI SRIRAMA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM

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

68 of the Act being the unexplained cash deposits made during the impugned assessment year and added it to the income returned by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Accordingly, the assessed income was determined at Rs.4,50,00,000/- against the NIL income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. NEPORIDE PHARMACEUTICALS, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

68 of the Act being the unexplained cash deposits made during the impugned assessment year and added it to the income returned by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Accordingly, the assessed income was determined at Rs.4,50,00,000/- against the NIL income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed