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

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

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought

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

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was\nenhanced from 30% to 60%, was applicable only to the transactions from 01.4.2017 and\ncould not be applied retrospectively. The Ld.AR submitted that the Tribunal in its\naforesaid orders had specifically observed that the higher rate of tax @60% under\nsection 115BBE

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

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

Section 68 and 69C of the Income\nTax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have\nbeen debited in the trading account Since the transaction of Rs.2,92,93,288/\nrepresented alleged purchases -from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent\non it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-" The CIT(A) ought

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

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

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. 42. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O. disallowed the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 9,59,424/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 43. Also, the A.O. made an addition of a commission @ 0.25%, which he was of the view that

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. 42. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O. disallowed the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 9,59,424/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 43. Also, the A.O. made an addition of a commission @ 0.25%, which he was of the view that

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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. 42. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O. disallowed the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 9,59,424/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 43. Also, the A.O. made an addition of a commission @ 0.25%, which he was of the view that

ACIT, 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. 42. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O. disallowed the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 9,59,424/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 43. Also, the A.O. made an addition of a commission @ 0.25%, which he was of the view that