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

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. 12 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 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. 12 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 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. 12 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 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. 12 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 assessment only

VENKATESWARA RAO KOGANTI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

68,280/-.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under the\nE-assessment Scheme, 2019 to verify the issue of \"Cash deposit during\ndemonetization period\". Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2)\nand 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. Assessee in response to\nthese notices also made submissions from time to time. During

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MANCHUKONDAS SHAYAM ZAVERI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.629/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Manchukondas Income Tax Shyam Zaveri Central Circle-1 D.No.10-1-27, Visakhapatnam Opp:Vemana Mandir Gold Plaza, Sampath Vinayak Temple Road Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abafm3933F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.26/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.629/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S Manchukondas Shyam Zaveri Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.10-1-27, Income Tax Opp:Vemana Mandir Central Circle-1 Gold Plaza, Sampath Vinayak Temple Visakhapatnam Road, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abafm3933F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Smt Suman Malik, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

section manager. Both of them were not available at the time of survey. In the statement recorded on 03.12.2015, his father had explained the difference in silver and sought time for reconciling the differences in gold ornaments, gold bars. On 13.01.2016, within two months time, the assessee had reconciled the stock position and placed before the AO with relevant