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)

64 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: “2. The computer operator, unfortunately missed to pick

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

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

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:

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2016-17. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of the case. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions

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:

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2016-17. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of the case. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions

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:

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2016-17. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of the case. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions

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:

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2016-17. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of the case. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions

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:

Section 147 of the Act, dated 17.08.2021 for AY 2016-17. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in circumstances of the case. Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

64% and 66% mentioned in the diary indicates the net profit after the business expenses. The Ld.DR argued that even the assessee failed to furnish the eveidence for payment of commission / designing charges stated to be deducted at source., therefore, submitted that the said commission / designing charges are also not allowable deduction. Hence the receipts noted @63% etc. required

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

64% and 66% mentioned in the diary indicates the net profit after the business expenses. The Ld.DR argued that even the assessee failed to furnish the eveidence for payment of commission / designing charges stated to be deducted at source., therefore, submitted that the said commission / designing charges are also not allowable deduction. Hence the receipts noted @63% etc. required

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU AVNASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 1,64

MALIPEDDI GIRIDHAR,AMALAPURAM vs. THE ASSTISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Malipeddi Giridhar V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-1 Income Tax Office D.No.7-1-20, Mgr Mall Deepthi Towers Tk Street, High School Road Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 East Godavari District – 533201 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amhpm0210B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

64,434/- for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 22.09.2017. Later, on 02.02.2018 and 31.03.2018 assessee filed two revised returns admitting total income of Rs. 16,01,950/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS based on the latest return filed by the assessee on 31.03.2018 and accordingly statutory notices under section

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (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 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26/03/2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna vs. ITO The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. Tax effect relating to each Ground of Appeal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 2(22)(e) and such sums in the hands of the shareholder shall be treated as deemed dividend. 8. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs. 12,68,449/- disallowing the interest paid to bank by holding that the advances taken by the assessee are not related to the business activity carried out by the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 2(22)(e) and such sums in the hands of the shareholder shall be treated as deemed dividend. 8. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs. 12,68,449/- disallowing the interest paid to bank by holding that the advances taken by the assessee are not related to the business activity carried out by the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 2(22)(e) and such sums in the hands of the shareholder shall be treated as deemed dividend. 8. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs. 12,68,449/- disallowing the interest paid to bank by holding that the advances taken by the assessee are not related to the business activity carried out by the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POTLURI PHANENDRS BABU , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Potluri Phanendra Babu Ward – 3(2) 1St Floor, Infinity Towers, Visakhapatnam Sankara Matham Road Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agspp7638K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.132/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.491/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) Sri Potluri Phanendra Babu Vs. Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, Infinity Towers, Ward – 3(2) Sankara Matham Road Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agspp7638K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

64,000 SB A/c No.10846459231 with SBI 1. Cash deposit 02.06.2011 9,80,000 TOTAL 9,80,000 9,80,000 HDFC A/c No.00501000179862 1 Cash deposit 19.05.2011 24,96,000 2 Cash deposit 26.05.2011 20,04,000 3 Cash deposit 27.05.2011 5,00,000 4 Cash deposit 14.06.2011 3,09,750 5 Cash deposit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. APOORVA SAROVAR, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.181/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Dcit, Apoorva Sarovar, Central Circle-2, Vs. Kurnool – 518 004. Guntur – 522 004. State Of Andhra Pradesh. State Of Andhra Pradesh. Pan Abefa4123B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca For Revenue : Sri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, V.P. :

section 142(1) of the IT Act, the assessee furnished information called for. The assessee e-filed audit report in form No. 3CB and 3CD and also submitted audited financials account with annexure. On examination of relevant information filed, it is seem that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. A survey action