ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the reason that the investment in new residential house property is made outside India i.e., in USA and the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in upholding the same. 2. The Ld. AO is not correct in charging interest under section 234A; 234B and 234C and the Id. CIT (Appeals

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.

68 of the Act: Rs. 3,47,97,000/-. 4 Ranar Agrochem Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although, the CIT(A) directed the AO to consider the assessee’s claim that the unreconciled receipt of Rs. 1,35,680/- was accounted for in the next financial year

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)

54,800/- on 08.03.2018. It was noticed that assessee has declared a capital balance of Rs.48,53,245/- in M/s. A.R. Constructions but did not disclose the capital introduced in M/s. Lakshmi Cold Storage and M/s. Vigneswara Cold Storage where the assessee invested amount of Rs.1,45,64,960/- and Rs. 86,64,883/- respectively towards his 40% share

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju for purchase

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju for purchase

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju for purchase

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 31. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel has reiterated the submissions which he was made before the Assessing Officer but, no evidence is filed. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us also, no evidence with reference to the advance received from Sri W. Raju for purchase

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, 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. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds in its appeal: - : “1. The order passed

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. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds in its appeal: - : “1. The order passed

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

54,70,956/- in the bank account, and\nthereafter proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 93,00,000/- with respect to\nother lenders under section 68

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nM/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

Section 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading\naccount since the transaction of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged\npurchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the\nPage. No 8\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos

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)

54,474/-based on the profit found in the impounded material during the survey. 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)

54,474/-based on the profit found in the impounded material during the survey. 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)

54,474/-based on the profit found in the impounded material during the survey. 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