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

68 of the Act is not relevant for the\n\nPage No. 7\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\n\npresent set of facts. He therefore found that the assessee total investment is\nRs. 1.75 Crores towards the purchase of shares and out of which\nRs. 87.50 lakhs were invested

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

section 68 of the Act. Further, Assessing Officer noticed that Sri Poosarla Satyanarayana has received Rs.36,75,000/- 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

section 68 of the Act. Further, Assessing Officer noticed that Sri Poosarla Satyanarayana has received Rs.36,75,000/- from

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)

75% share in Profits. Assessee is also a partner in M/s. Lakshmi Cold Storage and M/s. Vigneswara Cold Storage. The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 admitting a total income of Rs.7,54,800/- on 08.03.2018. It was noticed that assessee has declared a capital balance of Rs.48,53,245/- in M/s. A.R. Constructions

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act is not fulfilled addition made by the Assessing Officer be upheld. 27. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 28. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs. 20,82,145/- Page No. 14 I.T.A.Nos

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act is not fulfilled addition made by the Assessing Officer be upheld. 27. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 28. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs. 20,82,145/- Page No. 14 I.T.A.Nos

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act is not fulfilled addition made by the Assessing Officer be upheld. 27. Per contra, Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 28. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs. 20,82,145/- Page No. 14 I.T.A.Nos

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the CIT(A. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer( AO) found that the assessee is a partnership firm having 8 partners with Sri Ch.Mahankali as the main partner. All the partners together have contributed the share capital of Rs.2,25,50,000/- during the impugned

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

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

75,000/- was deposited and 11th November an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited there are no other major deposits, therefore to treat the amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- deposit during the month of November as unexplained is not justified. 11. The point to be noted here by the assessing officer is the sales and purchases in the vegetable

DEEKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO (HUF),TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Bench: Us:

75,060/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act. 3 Deekonda Venkateswara Rao (HUF) 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was the claim of the assessee that it was carrying on the business of purchase/sale of maize on a retail basis. Elaborating on the reason

ZOYEB HYDERABADWALA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.433/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Zoyeb Hyderabadwala V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 27-32-9, Ground Floor Direct Taxes Building 75 Feet Road Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam - 530001 Besides Gayatri College Mvp Colony [Pan: Aaapz3387M] Visakhapatnam - 530017 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

75 Feet Road MVP Double Road Visakhapatnam - 530001 Besides Gayatri College MVP Colony [PAN: AAAPZ3387M] Visakhapatnam - 530017 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri C.Sanjeevarao, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश

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

75 taxmann.com 215 wherein it was held that the assessment proceedings generated by issuance of notice under section 153A(1)(a) can be concluded against interest of assessee including making additions even without any incriminating material being available against assessee in search under section 132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 153A

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

75 taxmann.com 215 wherein it was held that the assessment proceedings generated by issuance of notice under section 153A(1)(a) can be concluded against interest of assessee including making additions even without any incriminating material being available against assessee in search under section 132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 153A

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

75 taxmann.com 215 wherein it was held that the assessment proceedings generated by issuance of notice under section 153A(1)(a) can be concluded against interest of assessee including making additions even without any incriminating material being available against assessee in search under section 132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 153A

KAVULURU LAKSHMI NARAYANA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA

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.464/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-7-10A, Donka Road Ward-2(2) Mogalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aajhk5298R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-2, Guntur In Ita No.372/Gnt/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Dated19.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2014-15 With The Delay Of 36 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Sickness Of 2

section 68 of the IT Act while making the addition pertaining to alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account in as much as sec.68 has limited scope and applies to cases relating to unexplained cash-credits recorded in the books of accounts. 3. Ground No.5 and 6 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication. 4. Ground

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)

75,000/-. Further, the assessee has also incurred registration and stamp duty expenses of Rs.23,08,175/-. An amount of Rs.55,74,687/- was paid during the year under review including TDS of Rs.2,95,500/-. The TDS was duly deducted and paid to the Central Government account and Form No.16B was duly issued to the seller. Thus, the assessee

ANDHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO,SRIKAKULAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 269SS are not applicable to the case of the assessee. However, the Ld. AO did not agree with the submissions and the explanation given by the assessee and accordingly levied the penalty of Rs. 75,68

KANDULA RANGA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.90/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Kandula Ranga Reddy, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Altpk 9573 C Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 27/07/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

75,04,322/- belong to the family members as detailed in para 6 of the assessment order. The AO after considering the submissions considered 1632.99 grams valued at Rs. 4 45,67,473/- as undisclosed gold jewellery not belonging to the family members and accordingly taxed the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed