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

68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that during the impugned assessment year 34 shareholders have invested in the assessee company by acquiring the equity shares on the face value of Rs 10/- each for a premium of Rs.45/- per share. Ld. AR further submitted that, out of 34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A

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

68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that during the impugned assessment year 34 shareholders have invested in the assessee company by acquiring the equity shares on the face value of Rs 10/- each for a premium of Rs.45/- per share. Ld. AR further submitted that, out of 34 Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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

GOLLA NARAYANARAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,40,000.00 ------------------------- Total (Principal + Interest) - Rs.1,88,40,000.00 3683 sft. 1142 sft. 400 sft. ----------- 5225 sft. 56 I.T.A Nos.380,487- 489, 433,499-503/Viz/2017 & CO Nos.80 - 85/Viz/2017 Golla Narayana Rao, Vijayawada ----------- 5225 x Rs.2,600/- - Rs.1,35,85,000/- + So far given - Rs.48,80,000 ---------------------- Total Amount Paid - Rs.1,84,65,000.00 ---------------------- Loose sheet No.30 (scanned copy

GOLLA NARAYANARAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. AD CIT, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,40,000.00 ------------------------- Total (Principal + Interest) - Rs.1,88,40,000.00 3683 sft. 1142 sft. 400 sft. ----------- 5225 sft. 56 I.T.A Nos.380,487- 489, 433,499-503/Viz/2017 & CO Nos.80 - 85/Viz/2017 Golla Narayana Rao, Vijayawada ----------- 5225 x Rs.2,600/- - Rs.1,35,85,000/- + So far given - Rs.48,80,000 ---------------------- Total Amount Paid - Rs.1,84,65,000.00 ---------------------- Loose sheet No.30 (scanned copy

DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA. vs. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA.

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,40,000.00 ------------------------- Total (Principal + Interest) - Rs.1,88,40,000.00 3683 sft. 1142 sft. 400 sft. ----------- 5225 sft. 56 I.T.A Nos.380,487- 489, 433,499-503/Viz/2017 & CO Nos.80 - 85/Viz/2017 Golla Narayana Rao, Vijayawada ----------- 5225 x Rs.2,600/- - Rs.1,35,85,000/- + So far given - Rs.48,80,000 ---------------------- Total Amount Paid - Rs.1,84,65,000.00 ---------------------- Loose sheet No.30 (scanned copy

DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

68,40,000.00 ------------------------- Total (Principal + Interest) - Rs.1,88,40,000.00 3683 sft. 1142 sft. 400 sft. ----------- 5225 sft. 56 I.T.A Nos.380,487- 489, 433,499-503/Viz/2017 & CO Nos.80 - 85/Viz/2017 Golla Narayana Rao, Vijayawada ----------- 5225 x Rs.2,600/- - Rs.1,35,85,000/- + So far given - Rs.48,80,000 ---------------------- Total Amount Paid - Rs.1,84,65,000.00 ---------------------- Loose sheet No.30 (scanned copy