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)

section 68 of the Act. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of Sachdeva (supra) though related to sale of jewellery and the failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of sale, it was not related to the addition u/s 68. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR is distinguishable and does

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

section 68 of the Act. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of Sachdeva (supra) though related to sale of jewellery and the failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of sale, it was not related to the addition u/s 68. The case law relied 8 I.T.A. No.452/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 Dirisala Bala Murali, Palakol upon

ASHA SANGHAVI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , RAJAHMUNDRY

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.33/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Asha Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-22-12 Ward-2 Nandepu Heights Rajamahendravaram T.Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Awfps2816R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 68 of the Act. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of Sachdeva (supra) though related to sale of jewellery and the failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of sale, it was not related to the addition u/s 68. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR is distinguishable and does

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

68", "Section 69", "Section 132", "Section 132(4)", "Section 132(4A)"], "issues": "Whether additions made by the AO and confirmed

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

4)", "Section 131", "Section 68", "Section 69C" ], "issues": "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating profit

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

4)", "Section 132(4A)", "Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Section 69 of the Act", "Section 68

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:

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,74,755/- made by Ld.AO towards the transaction carried on with M/s Prithvi Trader treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

section 153A – Held, yes [Paras 10 and 12] The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court also express its view as under : A.P.High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s AMR India Ltd. in ITTA No.354 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014. The Hon’ble High Court held that the A.O. has no jurisdiction to re-agitate the assessments which were

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

section 153A – Held, yes [Paras 10 and 12] The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court also express its view as under : A.P.High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s AMR India Ltd. in ITTA No.354 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014. The Hon’ble High Court held that the A.O. has no jurisdiction to re-agitate the assessments which were

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

section 153A – Held, yes [Paras 10 and 12] The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court also express its view as under : A.P.High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s AMR India Ltd. in ITTA No.354 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014. The Hon’ble High Court held that the A.O. has no jurisdiction to re-agitate the assessments which were

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

section 153A – Held, yes [Paras 10 and 12] The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court also express its view as under : A.P.High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s AMR India Ltd. in ITTA No.354 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014. The Hon’ble High Court held that the A.O. has no jurisdiction to re-agitate the assessments which were

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

section 153A – Held, yes [Paras 10 and 12] The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court also express its view as under : A.P.High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s AMR India Ltd. in ITTA No.354 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014. The Hon’ble High Court held that the A.O. has no jurisdiction to re-agitate the assessments which were

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM vs. VIJAYANAGARAM WHEAT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KONDAKARAKAM

sections": ["139(4)", "115JB", "142(1)", "68", "115BBE", "139(8)", "250(4)"], "issues": "Whether the addition of Rs. 93,00,000/- made

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: Rs. 3,47,97,000/-. 4 Ranar Agrochem Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

KAMMELA SRINIVASARA RAO,TENALI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

68,004/-, the 4 Ld. AO treated it as unexplained money and brought to tax under the provisions of section

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

section 132(4A) that deem that the contents of the seized material are true.” 53. On the above grounds, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased tobacco from grey market by cash which was already included in the purchases while admitting the gross profit during the filing of return of income. The Ld. AR admitted that this

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

section 132(4A) that deem that the contents of the seized material are true.” 53. On the above grounds, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased tobacco from grey market by cash which was already included in the purchases while admitting the gross profit during the filing of return of income. The Ld. AR admitted that this