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

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)

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee by observing as under:- “Introduction of capital by the partners:It is noticed from the balance sheet furnished that an aggregate of Rs. 63,55,999/- has been introduced as partners capital during the financial year relevant to the asst. Year under consideration. When it was asked

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)

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee by observing as under:- “Introduction of capital by the partners:It is noticed from the balance sheet furnished that an aggregate of Rs. 63,55,999/- has been introduced as partners capital during the financial year relevant to the asst. Year under consideration. When it was asked

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)

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee by observing as under:- “Introduction of capital by the partners:It is noticed from the balance sheet furnished that an aggregate of Rs. 63,55,999/- has been introduced as partners capital during the financial year relevant to the asst. Year under consideration. When it was asked

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)

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee by observing as under:- “Introduction of capital by the partners:It is noticed from the balance sheet furnished that an aggregate of Rs. 63,55,999/- has been introduced as partners capital during the financial year relevant to the asst. Year under consideration. When it was asked

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

68 of the Act as the said amount was mentioned in the books of account under the head unsecured loans from 11 individual loan creditors and was not properly explained by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 32,56,608/- by disallowing the claim made by the assessee as 5 interest on unsecured loans availed during

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

68 of the Act as the said amount was mentioned in the books of account under the head unsecured loans from 11 individual loan creditors and was not properly explained by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 32,56,608/- by disallowing the claim made by the assessee as 5 interest on unsecured loans availed during

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

68 of the Act as the said amount was mentioned in the books of account under the head unsecured loans from 11 individual loan creditors and was not properly explained by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 32,56,608/- by disallowing the claim made by the assessee as 5 interest on unsecured loans availed during

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

68 is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering that assessee has specifically objected the stamp duty value, therefore confirming addition made U/s. 56(2)(x)(b) * B of Rs. 45,40,70/- without referring matter to DVO on assumption and presumption basis is illegal

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kanchan Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Phho Baugh Road Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Ambati Satram Junction Visakhapatnam – 530020 Khadarnagar, Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abepl4375Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credit and Rs.45,40,750/- towards disallowance under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. Subsequently

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

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

section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to examine the details and asked him to submit remand report. The Assessing Officer has submitted the remand report, which is reproduced as under:- (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) “4. Since the assessee-bank did not comply with the show cause letter dated

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

section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to examine the details and asked him to submit remand report. The Assessing Officer has submitted the remand report, which is reproduced as under:- (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) “4. Since the assessee-bank did not comply with the show cause letter dated

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

section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to examine the details and asked him to submit remand report. The Assessing Officer has submitted the remand report, which is reproduced as under:- (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) “4. Since the assessee-bank did not comply with the show cause letter dated

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

section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to examine the details and asked him to submit remand report. The Assessing Officer has submitted the remand report, which is reproduced as under:- (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) “4. Since the assessee-bank did not comply with the show cause letter dated

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only