BONTHULA HARI VENKATA KRISHNA,SRIKAKULAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bonthula Hari Venkata Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Krishna, Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-4(1), Pan: Agfpb8358K Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

68 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21/12/2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,85

DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

85,390/-. The\nassessee is also a Managing Partner in M/s. Sri Lakshmi Constructions.\nA survey operation under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the\nbusiness premises of the partnership firm M/s. Sri Lakshmi Constructions on\n19.02.2020 and incriminating material in the form of personal diaries, daily cash\nPage. No 2\npayment vouchers, promissory notes and loose

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 aggregating to Rs.31,41,71,000/-, considering it that the assessee accepted cash in demonetised currency. On this issue Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that assessee has purchased gold bullion by making payments to the sellers through RTGS / NEFT which was not disputed by the Ld.AO. Ld.AR vehemently argued that the only objection

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

MANOHARMAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

68 of the I.T. Act of gift received from his daughter Neelam as the source of gift received was clearly explained.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14, declaring an income of Rs. 4,51,910/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under section

JASTI VENKATAPATHI RAO,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.365/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jasti Venkatapathi Rao V. Acit – Circle -2(1) Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor Flat No. 23 Venkata Ganapathy Residency Standard House 6Th Line, Brodipet Beside Sbi, Nagarampalem Guntur - 522002 Guntur-522004 [Pan:Abupj3793Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 68 of the Act as unexplained. On this issue, Ld.Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that in the case of M/s. Balaji Infra and M/s. Sri Sai Balaji, the unsecured loans were taken by way of bank transactions which is evidenced by the bank statements of the assessee. Further he also submitted that loan creditors have submitted their bank

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NAGA HANUMAN SOLVENT OILS PRIVATE LIMITED., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Circle-3(1) Private Ltd., Visakhapatnam Sri Balaji Residency Sector-9, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaccn1547J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 41.” 15.1. Similarly in the case of Satpal & Sons (HUF)v. ACIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi* 85 taxman.com 283, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi has also taken similar view. In the instant case, the assessee has transferred the trade credit balances to the capital accounts without any confirmation from the trade creditor for cessation or remission

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

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(EXEMPTIONS), , VIJAYAWADA vs. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST, , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 (On campus: 30 and Off campus: 38). 7.6 Butterfly Hill School: The school caters mainly to the children on campus but a few children from the surrounding villages also attend the school. There are 329 children (Boys: 221 and Girls: 108) in the school with a staff of 25 (Men: 11 and Women: 14) 7.7 Night Shelter: The Night

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)

85,000/- and creditworthiness, as additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded to accept the additional evidence. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.1,17,25,976/- including an amount of Rs.84,40,976/- as detailed above and passed the Assessment order on 20.12.2019 assessing the total income as Rs.1,25,10,476/-. 3. Aggrieved

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

85,039/-. Subsequently, according to information received it was noticed that assessee has purchased building admeasuring of 900 sq. yards at Suryaraopet, Vijayawada for a consideration of Rs. 5,01,50,000/- (including stamp duty & registered Charges). It was submitted that the assessee wife has contributed Rs.60,45,000/- and the balance amount

KONERU VANAJA DEVI L/R OF KONERU VENKATA SATYA HANUMAN PRASAD (LATE),VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.159/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) Smt. Koneru Vanaja Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, L/R Of Koneru Venkata Satya Ward-2(4), Hanuman Prasad (Late), Vijayawada. Dr. No. 64-5-20, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada – 520010. Pan: Apapk 7923 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

section 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 26/12/2017 and assessed the total income at Rs. 80,02,563/- which includes certain additions viz., (i) income from LTCG of Rs. 39,78,310/-; (ii) Rs. 30,38,650/- under unexplained cash credits U/s. 68

ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 4. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing.” Further, the assessee has also raised additional ground 3. vide its petition dated 22/11/2016 which reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances