ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Section 69 of the Act", "Section 68 of the Act", "Section

HERMON EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 68 does not need any introduction. To summarise, it taxes any credit appearing in the books of an assessee, where the assessee is not able to or not satisfactorily able to explain the nature and source of 10 ITA.No.347/VIZ./2024 such credit. It is a deeming fiction, which taxes a credit as income on unsatisfactory explanation about

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\npresent set of facts. He therefore found that the assessee total investment is\nRs. 1.75 Crores towards the purchase of shares and out of which\nRs. 87.50 lakhs were invested

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO, NELLORE

21\n22 23 24 25 26 27 26\n19. mahAbuddhir mahAyiryo mahAshaktir mahAdhyuthill\nanirdeshyavapub slarimAn amey AtmA mahAdbri dhRk\nPage. No 6\nI.T.A.No.408/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.No.460/VIZ/2025\nDonakala Chenchu Narasimha Rao --\n9. The contention of the Ld.AR is that these cash payments was made for\nthe purpose of business and not for payment of on-money for the investment in\nland

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

section 68 of the Act. On a perusal of the record, we find that the assessee company had during the subject year received unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 6,58,84,000/-. On being called upon to substantiate the genuineness of the loan transactions, the assessee company had submitted the confirmation letters along with supporting documentary evidence 21

ARAVIND REDDY DEVAGIRI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(2), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aravind Reddy Devagiri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 2(2) 14-19-35, 1St Lane Vijayapuri Guntur Andhra Pradesh Jkc College Road, Guntur 522006 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Auepd7820R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has introduced capital by way of cash for Rs. 20,000/- and has paid insurance amount for Rs.1,20,000/- which was credited at the capital account of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that considering the quantum of cash of Rs. 20,000/- introduced by the assessee as capital which is very

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

21\n22 23 24 25 26 27 26\n19. mahAbuddhir mahAyiryo mahAshaktir mahAdhyuthill\nanirdeshyavapub slarimAn amey AtmA mahAdbri dhRk\nPage. No 6\nI.T.A.No.408/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.No.460/VIZ/2025\nDonakala Chenchu Narasimha Rao --\n9.\nThe contention of the Ld.AR is that these cash payments was made for\nthe purpose of business and not for payment of on-money for the investment in\nland

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)

21-02-2023. Then our brother, Sri Y.Uday Kumar, one of the partner of the firm, M/s. Rajani Gold, approached Sri D.L.NarasimhaRao, Advocate, Vijayawada who dealt with the appeal work earlier, belonging to our father, Sri .ChandraRao, before the Hon'ble ITAT, VSP and requested him to take up the appeal work in the instant case before

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(1) dated 23-01-2014, besides asking the names and complete addreses of the parties from whom the loans were alleged to be raised, the assessee firm was asked to explain the sources and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions along with verifiable supporting evidences. In response to the same vide its letter submitted

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(1) dated 23-01-2014, besides asking the names and complete addreses of the parties from whom the loans were alleged to be raised, the assessee firm was asked to explain the sources and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions along with verifiable supporting evidences. In response to the same vide its letter submitted

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(1) dated 23-01-2014, besides asking the names and complete addreses of the parties from whom the loans were alleged to be raised, the assessee firm was asked to explain the sources and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions along with verifiable supporting evidences. In response to the same vide its letter submitted

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(1) dated 23-01-2014, besides asking the names and complete addreses of the parties from whom the loans were alleged to be raised, the assessee firm was asked to explain the sources and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions along with verifiable supporting evidences. In response to the same vide its letter submitted

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

section 68 of the Act. 20. Per contra, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the sale prices of the shares of the Sri Bhagwan Builders Private Limited and Shri Bhagwan Niketan Limited are abnormal and the assessee used it as the devise to explain the sources for the investment in the assessee company. He therefore pleaded

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

section 68 of the Act. 20. Per contra, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the sale prices of the shares of the Sri Bhagwan Builders Private Limited and Shri Bhagwan Niketan Limited are abnormal and the assessee used it as the devise to explain the sources for the investment in the assessee company. He therefore pleaded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

Section 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

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

21 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the\nstatements given by the alleged suppliers, during the Survey proceedings u/s\nPage. No 7\nI.T.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\n133A have an evidentiary value. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering these\nstatements recorded, while allowing part relief

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

21 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the\nstatements given by the alleged suppliers, during the Survey proceedings u/s\nPage. No 7\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\n133A have an evidentiary value. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering these\nstatements recorded, while allowing part relief

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

21 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the\nstatements given by the alleged suppliers, during the Survey proceedings u/s\nPage. No 7\nI.T.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited\n133A have an evidentiary value. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering these\nstatements recorded, while allowing part relief

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

21 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the\nstatements given by the alleged suppliers, during the Survey proceedings u/s\nPage. No 7\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\n133A have an evidentiary value. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering these\nstatements recorded, while allowing part relief