A.SRINIVASA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Sri A.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.48-13-20/1, F.No.Sf2 Ward-1(4) Sri Krishna Sai Residency Visakhapatnam Janaki Rama Street Visakhapatnam [Pan :Adhpa2185Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 68, cash credits made in the books of accounts for which the assessee could not explain the source to the satisfaction of the AO, required to be brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act. In the instant case, the deposits were made in the bank account. As per the settled issue, the bank deposits required

GHANTA PUNNA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act. Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) invoked the section 69 of the Act. The assessee

DIRISALA BALA MURALI,PALACOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Dirisala Bala Murali Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.15-8-12/2 Ward-I Shavukarpet Palakol Palakol, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Asfpd4074J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita Nos.10090 & 10094/2017-18 Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2011-12. 2

section 68, the amount found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee failed to offer explanation to the satisfaction of the AO required to be brought to tax u/s 68, whereas in the instant case, the said sum was not credited in the books of accounts, but the amount was found credited in the bank account

DECCAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

69 of the IT Act and, thus, attracting the provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessing officer by not applying the provisions of sec 115BBE not only erred but also caused prejudice to the revenue. 8.8. That leaves us with the another issue of excess stock of precious stones / gem stones and unaccounted gold jewellery received

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

68", "Section 69", "Section 132", "Section 132(4)", "Section 132(4A)"], "issues": "Whether additions made by the AO and confirmed

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

69 of the Act", "Section 68 of the Act", "Section 153B of the Act", "Section 132 of the Act", "Section

KHAN MOHAMMAD DIAMONDS & JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,GUNTUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Khan Mohammad Diamonds Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax & Jewellers Private Limited, (Central) 5-37-221/A, 4Th Lane Visakhapatnam Brodipet, Guntur [Pan : Aacck6467A]

69 of the Act. The AO did not invoke section 68/69 separately in the assessment order. The income required to be taxed @60% in case the undisclosed income representing section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO, NELLORE

69 of the Act", "Section 148 of the Act", "Section 133A of the Act", "Section 68 r.w.s

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

Section 69 is sustainable, and whether cash loans treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 are valid." } }

SATHI MANGAYAMMA,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished 10 Sathi Mangayamma under section 139; or (b) determined by the assessing officer includes any income referred to in section 68

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B,\n69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under\nsection 139; or\n(b)\ndetermined

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

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 protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investiggation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section 69

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 protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investiggation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section 69

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.

69,43,433/- . Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act. 3. The AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2016, made certain additions/disallowances to the returned income of the assessee company, viz. (i) disallowance under section

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)

section 68 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative Page No. 4 I.T.A. No. 267/VIZ/2024 Aravind Reddy Devagiri [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee has made investments in the two firms by purchasing two cold storage units which was funded by M/s. A.R. Constructions where the assessee is a Managing Partner. The Ld.AR referring to Page

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

69 (SC), wherein the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed\nagainst the Order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 130\nTaxmann.com 492 (2021) holding that assessee was beneficiary of\naccommodation entries and basis for formation of such bellef were several\ninquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that there had been\nescapement of income of assessee from assessment

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

69 (SC), wherein the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed\nagainst the Order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 130\nTaxmann.com 492 (2021) holding that assessee was beneficiary of\naccommodation entries and basis for formation of such bellef were several\ninquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that there had been\nescapement of income of assessee from assessment