INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

48 for computing the capital gains on the sale of the property in the hands of the assessee. We may further observe that in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble High Court, the department had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). V.S.M.R Jagdishchandran

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

68 of the Act is not relevant for the\nPage No. 7\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\npresent set of facts. He therefore found that the assessee total investment is\nRs. 1.75 Crores towards the purchase of shares and out of which\nRs. 87.50 lakhs were invested

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

Section 68 of the Act.\n7.4.8. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the cash\nentriesfound in the impounded document are duly accounted by the\nappellant in his books as well as in the books of the partnership firm M/s.\nSLC. As the transactions were properly recorded, sources thereon were\nexplained, impugned entries in impounded material

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

68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\n\npresent set of facts. He therefore found that the assessee total investment is\nRs. 1.75 Crores towards the purchase of shares and out of which\nRs. 87.50 lakhs were invested

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

48,000/- as on-money payment for property purchase under Section 69 of the Act. Separately, for another assessment year, cash loans totaling Rs. 88,87,000/- were treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

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

MANOHARMAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

68 of the I.T. Act of gift received from his daughter Neelam as the source of gift received was clearly explained.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14, declaring an income of Rs. 4,51,910/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under section

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

48,97,221/- for the period 11.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 and\nRs.2,27,59,489/- for the period of 01.04.2021 to 06.12.2021 reflecting the sales\nfrom unaccounted suppressing eggs from Unit-1, Chinnakondrupadu (V),\nPrathipadu (M), Guntur. Similarly, the unaccounted sales were quantified by the\nLd. AO for various branches.\nPage No. 5\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O

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)

48,72,600/- 4. Based on the statements recorded from the Managing Director during the survey operations, Assessing Officer made a disallowance amounting to Rs.1,55,42,604/- 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)

48,72,600/- 4. Based on the statements recorded from the Managing Director during the survey operations, Assessing Officer made a disallowance amounting to Rs.1,55,42,604/- 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)

48,72,600/- 4. Based on the statements recorded from the Managing Director during the survey operations, Assessing Officer made a disallowance amounting to Rs.1,55,42,604/- 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

SANDHI RAJA SEKHAR ,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 296/Viz/2024 (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sandhi Raja Sekhar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram. Ward-1, Pan: Axrps2387J Bhimavaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

48,803/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and proceeded to add cash credits in the bank account U/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 53,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before

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

48,76,020/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2018after making following additions: - a. Unsecured loan amounting Rs. 3 Crores treated as unexplained sum under section 68

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

48,76,020/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2018after making following additions: - a. Unsecured loan amounting Rs. 3 Crores treated as unexplained sum under section 68

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

48,76,020/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2018after making following additions: - a. Unsecured loan amounting Rs. 3 Crores treated as unexplained sum under section 68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

48,97,221/- for the period 11.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 and\nRs.2,27,59,489/- for the period of 01.04.2021 to 06.12.2021 reflecting the sales\nfrom unaccounted suppressing eggs from Unit-1, Chinnakondrupadu (V),\nPrathipadu (M), Guntur. Similarly, the unaccounted sales were quantified by the\nLd. AO for various branches.\nPage No. 5\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O

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:

68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast upon

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:

68 of the Act. 17. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had merely gone by the submissions filed by the assessee company before him and held the impugned loan received from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited (supra) as a genuine loan. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee company had discharged the onus that was cast upon