THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee society had filed before him additional evidence under Rule 46A

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee society had filed before him additional evidence under Rule 46A

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

46A of the Income Tax Act. 9. The assessing officer has not considered the above said factors and considered the entire deposits as unexplained cash deposits made under the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The addition of Rs. 73,95,320/- includes an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/-representing deposits made during

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68 of the Income-tax Act are strict and stringent due to t e that it is a charging section by itself. The section imposes certain legal responsibility on the appellant with regard to the nature and source thereof to 1 satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this background, let me examine the case at hand

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68 of the Income-tax Act are strict and stringent due to t e that it is a charging section by itself. The section imposes certain legal responsibility on the appellant with regard to the nature and source thereof to 1 satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this background, let me examine the case at hand

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68 of the Income-tax Act are strict and stringent due to t e that it is a charging section by itself. The section imposes certain legal responsibility on the appellant with regard to the nature and source thereof to 1 satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this background, let me examine the case at hand

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68 of the Income-tax Act are strict and stringent due to t e that it is a charging section by itself. The section imposes certain legal responsibility on the appellant with regard to the nature and source thereof to 1 satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this background, let me examine the case at hand

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68 of the Income-tax Act are strict and stringent due to t e that it is a charging section by itself. The section imposes certain legal responsibility on the appellant with regard to the nature and source thereof to 1 satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this background, let me examine the case at hand

MOTHUKURI SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 298/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-2(1) D.No.54-28/1-48, Flat.No.305 C R Building, 1St Floor Annex Ridge Grandeuer Apartment M G Road, Krishna District Road.No.2, Commercial Taxes Colony Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Auto Nagar, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh - 520007 [Pan : Adppm5568D ] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By : M.V. Prasad, Ar : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”]

Section 68 of the Act. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the furnished documents along with the written submissions on 19.10.2021, 08.02.2024, 14.04.2024 & 07.05.2024. After considering the submissions of the Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 298/VIZ/2024 Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained

MALIPEDDI GIRIDHAR,AMALAPURAM vs. THE ASSTISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Malipeddi Giridhar V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-1 Income Tax Office D.No.7-1-20, Mgr Mall Deepthi Towers Tk Street, High School Road Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 East Godavari District – 533201 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amhpm0210B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act: - a) Unsecured loans of Rs 76,87,947/-; b) Sundry creditors of Rs 2,48,55,217/- and c) Cash deposits of Rs 45,57,000/- 3. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed Rs 10,54,065/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, depreciation of Rs 6,24,965/- and expenditure of Rs.4

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act on account of unexplained gifts received by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT

SRINIVASA RAO CHEEDELLA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAPATLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Itat.

section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.7.28 crores u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.40,00,000/- towards cash credits u/s 68 of the Act, while completing the assessment. 4. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld.AO, an appeal was filed before the Ld.CIT(A), who passed the order