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

42,856/- under section 115JB of the\nAct. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny to verify the\nfollowing:-\nPage No. 2\nI.T.A.No.312/VIZ/2024\nC.O. No. 7/VIZ/2024\nVijayanagaram Wheat Products Private Limited T\nI.\nII.\nSubstantial payments shown to entities not registered under\nGST as per Sr. No. 44 of Form 3CD.\nHigh liabilities as compared

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)

42,604/- considering it as payment to bogus sub-contractors. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed sum of Rs. 68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section

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

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)

42,604/- considering it as payment to bogus sub-contractors. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed sum of Rs. 68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section

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)

42,604/- considering it as payment to bogus sub-contractors. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed sum of Rs. 68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the CIT(A. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer( AO) found that the assessee is a partnership firm having 8 partners with Sri Ch.Mahankali as the main partner. All the partners together have contributed the share capital of Rs.2,25,50,000/- during the impugned

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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

section 68 of the IT Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 13,99,42

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

section 68 of the IT Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 13,99,42

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

section 68 of the IT Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 13,99,42

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

section 68 of the IT Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 13,99,42

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

section 68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also observed difference in commission of sales\namounting to Rs. 10,67,285/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. Further Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has claimed Rs.95,42

SRIDHAR YARLAGADDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sridhar Yarlagadda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Abdpy4072 G Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. Your Appellant submitted that having disclosed under PMGKY scheme, the deposit under the said scheme ought to be considered as explained by the CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer and not taxed under section 115BBE. 5. Your Appellant alternatively submits that cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization

KHAN MOHAMMAD DIAMONDS & JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,GUNTUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.141/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Khan Mohammad Diamonds Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax & Jewellers Private Limited, (Central) 5-37-221/A, 4Th Lane Visakhapatnam Brodipet, Guntur [Pan : Aacck6467A]

42,013/- and out of which the undisclosed income of Rs.20,32,581/- was separately brought to tax. Later, the Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and found that out of the undisclosed income of Rs. 20,32,581/-, the excess stock was of Rs.5,38,428/- and excess cash of Rs.7,07,700/- required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, C.O.s, filed by the assessee are dismissed

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as\nincome u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order\nof the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction\nu/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A).\n3. On appeal, after considering

ISRINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68. Ground\n5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not\njustified in confirming the treatment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as unexplained\nexpenditure under section 69C on the basis of entry in form 26AS when\nthe transaction is relevant to the assessment year 2017-18Ground\n6. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive