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 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

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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 Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee made written submissions contesting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,06,27,000/-. After examining the written submissions

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

77,981/- as\nunexplained under section 69C of the Act.\n5. Further, Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has received interest under\nsection 194A of the Act of Rs.4,26,634/- and Rs. 28,89,339/- from\nShri Brajrang Power &Ispat Ltd., and Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) P. Ltd.,\nrespectively. Ld.AO observed that that the interest income

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

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

77,17,320/- in the impugned year but declared a turnover of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The assessee failed to provide a valid explanation for the difference in turnover reported and the cash deposited during the assessment proceedings. Even in the appeal proceedings, the assessee though submitted some copies of bills issued by a supplier i.e. Jitendra Vegetable Company

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

77,68,495/- 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

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

77,68,495/- 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

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

77,68,495/- 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

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

77,68,495/- 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

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

77,68,495/- 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

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BLACKBURN FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 27.09.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts

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]

section of the Income Tax Act nor matched the jottings or notings made in the diary with the books of accounts. Hence, the AO failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. The legal validity of evidentiary value of notings of loose sheets in the diary was examined by the coordinate bench of ITAT Amritsar in 124 taxmann.com 68

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]

section of the Income Tax Act nor matched the jottings or notings made in the diary with the books of accounts. Hence, the AO failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. The legal validity of evidentiary value of notings of loose sheets in the diary was examined by the coordinate bench of ITAT Amritsar in 124 taxmann.com 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP UNION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from\ntime to time calling for information regarding large value of cash deposited\nduring the demonetization period, bank statements, books of accounts and\nstatementof total income. After examining the assessee submissions,\nLd.Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] issued a show-cause notice\non 24.12.2019 regarding the cash

SRINIVASA RAO CHEEDELLA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAPATLA

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

Bench: The Itat.

section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.7.28 crores u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.40,00,000/- towards cash credits u/s 68 of the Act, while completing the assessment. 4. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld.AO, an appeal was filed before the Ld.CIT(A), who passed the order

GEDDA APPA RAO,UNDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Gedda Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Ward-1 Undi Bhimavaram [Pan : Axopg9721M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053170768(1) Dated 25.05.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-14. The Ao Reopened The Case U/S 147 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information With Respect To Cash Deposit In 2

68 of the Act, received as ‘on-money’ on sale of plot and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 computing total taxable income at Rs.31,77,949/- on 11.12.2017. 3. On being aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee