KRISHNA PRABHAS AGRO OILS PRIVATE LIMITED,MAREDUBAKA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAKINADA

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

74,755/- made by Ld.AO towards the transaction carried on with M/s Prithvi Trader treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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.

74,50,000/-; and (ii)j loans from the remaining thirty-three persons: Rs.2,73,47,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68

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

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)

section 68 of the Act. Considering the above submissions, Ld. CIT(A) reduced the turnover from Rs.79.92 crores to Rs.48.17 crores while estimating the same 1% on the turnover and confirming the addition of Rs.31,74

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 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

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 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

SHRI BHANU PRABHAKAR SRIRAMANENI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.418/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni V. Acit – Circle – 2(1) 29-14-53A Cr Building, 1St Floor Prakasam Road M.G. Road, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abppb1613C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतत तितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

74,201/- under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. 3. On being aggrieved by the order

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]

68 to section 69C of the Act. In this case, the AO has not invoked any such section. 4 I.T.A. No141/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s Khan Mohammad Diamonds & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Guntur The assessee placed paper book and as per paper book page No.58, it is seen that the AO called for the information regarding excess stock of Rs.7,74

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)”]

74,52,500/- was deleted in the substantive assessment, based on the evidences submitted by the company. If a protective assessment is to be invoked u/s 68 of the Act, the conditions laid down in section

LOKANADHA RAO BATHINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [Pan :Apqpb9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

74,687/- out of the loans taken from the following persons Bathina Rajyalakshmi, wife 3 I.T.A. No.283/Viz/2023, A.Y.2016-17 Lokanadha Rao Bathina, Visakhapatnam Rs.7,00,000/-, G.Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad Rs.2,50,000/-, G.S.Raju G. Con Rs.12,50,000/-, Hema Rs.75,000/-, I.R.Enterprise Rs.12,10,000/-, M.Soma Brahmam G. Con Rs.50,00,000/-, Srinivas Rs.17,50,000/- and V.S. Kumar Rs.14

SUJAN VIKAS MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PORANKI, KRISHNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4) , 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.41/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Sujan Vikas Mutually Aided Cooperative Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(4) Thrift & Credit Society Limited C.R. Building, Vijayawada-520001 6-32, Bjr Nagar Andhra Pradesh Near Sri Chaitanya Junior College Poranki – 521137 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aajas8586P] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sitaraman & Shri Shankar Cherukupally राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr Ar

74,68,000/- was in the form of Specified Bank Notes. The explanations furnished by the assessee was examined by the Ld.AO. The Ld. AO observed that assessee is not in the exempted category to receive Specified Bank Notes, being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, added an amount of Rs.1,72,179/- after considering the closing

ITO, WARD - 2(4),, VIJAYAWADA vs. APPLE ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED., VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.525/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Apple Elevators Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4) D.No.74-26-21, Main Road Vijayawada Near Saibaba Temple Ashok Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aadca6442N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.104/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.525/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S Apple Elevators Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.74-26-21, Main Road Ward-2(4) Near Saibaba Temple Vijayawada Ashok Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aadca6442N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

section 68 of the Act after giving due opportunity to appellant. From perusal of ITMR, it is evident that no such attempt was made by Assessing Officer either during assessment or remand stage. Further, the quantum of closing stock of appellant was never doubted during assessment proceedings as the books of accounts were not rejected. The Assessing Officer

CHINTAPALLI SUBHAKARA RAO(HUF) ,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-(2)1, VIJAYAWADA

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.554/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2008-09) Dr.Chintapalli Subhakara Rao (Huf) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Represented By Smt. C.Leela (Kartha) Income Tax D.No.29-10-1, Narasimhanaidu Street Circle-2(1) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aadhc1772N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

68 to 74 of the paper book, as per the paper book page No.69, sums of Rs.3,41,400/- vide cheque No.206956 dated 09.07.2007 drawn on Coastal Local Area Bank Ltd., Vijayawada and a sum of Rs.22,70,661/- vide cheque No.416121 dated 29.07.2010 were also paid from HUF account. From the above details, furnished by the assessee

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

74,868 19,68,717 7,87,487 2008-09 1,95,87,537 48,96,884 19,58,754 2009-10 1,19,64,518 29,91,129 11,96,452 2010-11 1,58,05,283 39,51,321 15,80,528 7. In this case, the assessee’s case is that he has purchased the printing material

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

74,868 19,68,717 7,87,487 2008-09 1,95,87,537 48,96,884 19,58,754 2009-10 1,19,64,518 29,91,129 11,96,452 2010-11 1,58,05,283 39,51,321 15,80,528 7. In this case, the assessee’s case is that he has purchased the printing material

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

74,868 19,68,717 7,87,487 2008-09 1,95,87,537 48,96,884 19,58,754 2009-10 1,19,64,518 29,91,129 11,96,452 2010-11 1,58,05,283 39,51,321 15,80,528 7. In this case, the assessee’s case is that he has purchased the printing material