GHANTA PUNNA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

22,29,000/- representing cash deposits made in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 allows

DIRISALA BALA MURALI,PALACOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Dirisala Bala Murali Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.15-8-12/2 Ward-I Shavukarpet Palakol Palakol, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Asfpd4074J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita Nos.10090 & 10094/2017-18 Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2011-12. 2

22,29,000/- representing cash deposits made in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 allows

KRISHNA PRABHAS AGRO OILS PRIVATE LIMITED,MAREDUBAKA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAKINADA

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

68 of the IT Act or provide such other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 18.10.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 1,45,17,660/–. The return of income filed by the assessee company was initially processed as such under

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

22", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee, an individual, reported income from salary, capital gains, and other sources for AY 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee traded in penny stocks, claimed bogus long-term capital gains, and made investments through shell companies, leading to additions under various sections. The assessee's group also faced a search

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

22,04,0000/- which is added to\nthe details of cheque payments made towards the purchase of land.\nPage. No 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

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

22", "summary": {"facts": "During a search and seizure operation in 2011, it was noticed that the assessee and family members traded in stocks and claimed exemption under Section 10(38). The AO suspected penny stock trading where prices were artificially inflated, and such transactions were considered accommodation entries. Additions were made under Section 68

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIKAS KUMAR CHHAJER, VIZIANAGARAM

Bench: Us:

22,76,960/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order

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 Ranar

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

22,04,0000/- which is added to\nthe details of cheque payments made towards the purchase of land.\nPage. No 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

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)

22-05-2023) may kindly be CONDONED and the appeal petition in Form No.36 may kindly be entertained and the grounds urged in may be taken up for adjudication on MERITS of the case. 5. I further affirm and state that this Declaration is given on my own volition, without the undue influence of any person and thereby this holds

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22

A.TIRUPATHI RAYUDU(HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22

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

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\nPage

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 43B of the Act for Rs. 68,10,031/-. Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans. Ld. CIT(A) also by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hindustan shipyard limited (supra) deleted the additions made on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 43B of the Act for Rs. 68,10,031/-. Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans. Ld. CIT(A) also by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hindustan shipyard limited (supra) deleted the additions made on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund