NARASIMHA RAO PALEM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.211/Viz/2023 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Narasimha Rao Palem Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Credit Ward-3(3), Society Limited, Vijayawada. Krishna District – 521214. Pan: Aacat7998M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

21,10,281/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have known that AO rejected the claim U/s. 80P of the Act solely for the reason that assessee failed to file a valid return in response to notice U/s. 142(1) dated 23/11/2017, said to have been issued by the AO, when in fact no such notice was issued

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

5\n\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\n\nreferred to the statements recorded on oath by various stock brokers and\nconcluded that assessee has declared bogus long term capital gains and has\nclaimed exemption for the same during the impugned assessment year.\nFurther, Ld. AO also observed that the shares

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

5\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\nreferred to the statements recorded on oath by various stock brokers and\nconcluded that assessee has declared bogus long term capital gains and has\nclaimed exemption for the same during the impugned assessment year.\nFurther, Ld. AO also observed that the shares held

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

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

5\nJanuary\n2015\nశ్రీజయనామసం||, ఉత్తరాయణం\nశిశిర ఋతువు, మాఘమాసము\nగురువారము/THURSDAY\nSunrise 6-45 a.m.\nOm Namo Venkatesava\n2.1.3-32\n6 σ.πο. 11-44\n3.2.6-24\n22\nSunset 6-05 p.m.\nwariter 7085\nమెత్రము\nchelana\n11,40000-00\nParen wreso\n11 30000-00 పంపినా.\nK.Pradeep-1 Wash در\n12796.000. Chebs the\n12204000\ncash mалю\n25000000-00\nDICINR\nDEAR\nDeif\n7000000-\n1500000\n576000

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.

5. The assessee company being aggrieved by 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 parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and considered the material available on record. 7. Sri M. Madhusudan, Chartered Accountant, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short

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)

5 is with respect to the addition made for an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- under section 68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld.AR submitted that assessee has borrowed funds as unsecured loans from various parties as listed in Page No. 123 of the paper book. Ld.AR further submitted that the parties who have given unsecured loans have

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

5\nI.T.A.No.408/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.No.460/VIZ/2025\nDonakala Chenchu Narasimha Rao --\nJanuary\n2015\nSunrise 6-45 a.m.\nOm Namo Venkatesava\nSunset 6-05 p.m.\nwariter 7085\nchelana\n11,40000-00\nమెత్రము\nParen wreso\n11 30000-00 పంపినా.\nK.Pradeep-1 Wash در\n12796.000. Chebs the\n12204000\ncash mалю\n25000000-00\nDICINR\n7000000-\n6000000-00-\nDEAR\n1500000\n1800000-00\nDeif\n576000\n330000\n7920359\n3720000

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

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)

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs 9,75,000/- made by the assessing officer towards alleged unexplained flat advances from customers. 6. The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 9,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- made towards unexplained cash credits

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)

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs 9,75,000/- made by the assessing officer towards alleged unexplained flat advances from customers. 6. The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 9,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- made towards unexplained cash credits

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)

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs 9,75,000/- made by the assessing officer towards alleged unexplained flat advances from customers. 6. The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 9,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- made towards unexplained cash credits

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)

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs 9,75,000/- made by the assessing officer towards alleged unexplained flat advances from customers. 6. The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 9,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- made towards unexplained cash credits

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

68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that during the impugned assessment year 34 shareholders have invested in the assessee company by acquiring the equity shares on the face value of Rs 10/- each for a premium of Rs.45/- per share. Ld. AR further submitted that, out of 34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A