NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

68,57,096/- as against the turnover worked out by the department at Rs.11,62,88,617/-. Ld. AO further noticed that assessee has claimed unaccounted cash expenditure and admitted only Rs.9,56,484/- as additional income. After examining the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition under section

MANDA MARKANDEYULU,,KAKINADA vs. THE ITO, WARD - 2,, KANCHILI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 56 clause (1)(vii) are brought into statute w.e.f. 1.10.2009, which was meant for tax in gifts other than cash. The assessee wanted to take advantage of this provision and hurriedly introduced his unaccounted money into books in the shape of gold and jewellery. This was the very reason why he was unable to furnish any details

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/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

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/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

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/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

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/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

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/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

214/- 4 14,300/- 18,514/- 2011-12 0 0/- 1 7,000/- 7,000/- 4.4. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not raise any specific plea against the above addition, except arguing that additions were made in all the years. The report of the assessing officer gives a rough indication of such amounts collected year wise, Accordingly

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

214/- 4 14,300/- 18,514/- 2011-12 0 0/- 1 7,000/- 7,000/- 4.4. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not raise any specific plea against the above addition, except arguing that additions were made in all the years. The report of the assessing officer gives a rough indication of such amounts collected year wise, Accordingly

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

214/- 4 14,300/- 18,514/- 2011-12 0 0/- 1 7,000/- 7,000/- 4.4. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not raise any specific plea against the above addition, except arguing that additions were made in all the years. The report of the assessing officer gives a rough indication of such amounts collected year wise, Accordingly

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

214/- 4 14,300/- 18,514/- 2011-12 0 0/- 1 7,000/- 7,000/- 4.4. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not raise any specific plea against the above addition, except arguing that additions were made in all the years. The report of the assessing officer gives a rough indication of such amounts collected year wise, Accordingly

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

214/- 4 14,300/- 18,514/- 2011-12 0 0/- 1 7,000/- 7,000/- 4.4. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not raise any specific plea against the above addition, except arguing that additions were made in all the years. The report of the assessing officer gives a rough indication of such amounts collected year wise, Accordingly