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)

71,000/- as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 9. On being aggrieved by the order

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

71,35,000/- as unexplained cash credit and accordingly deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR heavily placed reliance on the findings of the AO and the DDIT (Inv) which was discussed in detail

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. 67. As the financials of the lender company, viz. M/s VRB Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) revealed PBT at a loss of (Rs. 4.70 crore), therefore, the A.O. was of the view that it lacked the creditworthiness to advance a loan of Rs. 50 lac to the assessee company. Apart from 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:

Section 147 of the Act. 67. As the financials of the lender company, viz. M/s VRB Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) revealed PBT at a loss of (Rs. 4.70 crore), therefore, the A.O. was of the view that it lacked the creditworthiness to advance a loan of Rs. 50 lac to the assessee company. Apart from 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:

Section 147 of the Act. 67. As the financials of the lender company, viz. M/s VRB Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) revealed PBT at a loss of (Rs. 4.70 crore), therefore, the A.O. was of the view that it lacked the creditworthiness to advance a loan of Rs. 50 lac to the assessee company. Apart from 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:

Section 147 of the Act. 67. As the financials of the lender company, viz. M/s VRB Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) revealed PBT at a loss of (Rs. 4.70 crore), therefore, the A.O. was of the view that it lacked the creditworthiness to advance a loan of Rs. 50 lac to the assessee company. Apart from 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:

Section 147 of the Act. 67. As the financials of the lender company, viz. M/s VRB Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) revealed PBT at a loss of (Rs. 4.70 crore), therefore, the A.O. was of the view that it lacked the creditworthiness to advance a loan of Rs. 50 lac to the assessee company. Apart from that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as income u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, after considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, C.O.s, filed by the assessee are dismissed

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as\nincome u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order\nof the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction\nu/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A).\n3. On appeal, after considering

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68,023/- and interest on bank loans for Rs. 96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68,023/- and interest on bank loans for Rs. 96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

68,023/- and interest on bank loans for Rs. 96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

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]

68 (Amrit- Trib) in the case of Smt.Harmohinder Kaur Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar and considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla 199 taxman.com 2155 and the decision of Common cause (registered society) Vs. Union of India 77 taxman.com 245 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

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]

68 (Amrit- Trib) in the case of Smt.Harmohinder Kaur Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar and considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla 199 taxman.com 2155 and the decision of Common cause (registered society) Vs. Union of India 77 taxman.com 245 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.18/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop. M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 First Line, Indira Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.25/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.18/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bharathi Soap Works Income Tax First Line, Indira Nagar Central Circle-1 Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acfpa3107K] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [For Short, “Cit(A)”]

71,030/-. Subsequently a notice u/s 143(2) was issued and during the proceedings, meanwhile, the assessee has filed an application u/s 245C before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), Chennai on 19.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18. In his application, the assessee admitted additional income as detailed in paragraph 3 of the order

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

71 days and filed condonation petition, citing medical reasons. I have gone through the condonation petition, medical certificate filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 I.T.A. No.299/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam 3. Brief facts of the case