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. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract para No.8 of the cited order which reads as under : “5

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

5 I.T.A. No.452/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 Dirisala Bala Murali, Palakol coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in Mehul V.Vyas Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) and held that the amounts found credited in the bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered to be books maintained by the assessee in any previous year as understood for the purpose of 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:

section 68 of the IT Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the above transaction

NARASIMHA RAO PALEM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.211/Viz/2023 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Narasimha Rao Palem Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Credit Ward-3(3), Society Limited, Vijayawada. Krishna District – 521214. Pan: Aacat7998M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the benefit U/s. 80P of the Act since the claim was made in the return filed on 18/11/2019 in response to alleged notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 23/11/2017 since 80P is a beneficial section and judiciary in several cases held that such technicalities of delayed filing

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

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

68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited.\n5. M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited is a company engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacturing of Steel and TMT Bars, filed its return

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)

5 I.T.A. No. 162/VIZ/2023 Sri Rajani Gold an amount of Rs.31,41,71,000/- as unexplained under section 68

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

BONTHULA HARI VENKATA KRISHNA,SRIKAKULAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bonthula Hari Venkata Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Krishna, Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-4(1), Pan: Agfpb8358K Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

section 68 of the act. 5. Apart from that, as the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim that

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. This ground is dismissed. 6 In the result the appeal is partly allowed.” 5

ARAVIND REDDY DEVAGIRI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(2), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aravind Reddy Devagiri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 2(2) 14-19-35, 1St Lane Vijayapuri Guntur Andhra Pradesh Jkc College Road, Guntur 522006 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Auepd7820R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

5. Ground Nos. 1, 8 & 9 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. Ground Nos.2 & 3 are with respect to the addition of Rs.1,94,99,178/- made under section 68

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

68,980/-. The\nreturn was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act"]. Assessee is the Chairman-cum-\nManaging Director of M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited.\n\n5. M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited is a company engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacturing of Steel and TMT Bars, filed its return

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

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

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. 13,99,42,750/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 12 5

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. 13,99,42,750/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 12 5

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. 13,99,42,750/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 12 5

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. 13,99,42,750/- as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act. 12 5

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. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer on other issues. 5