GHANTA PUNNA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of Sachdeva (supra) though related to sale of jewellery and the failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of sale, it was not related to the addition u/s 68. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR is distinguishable and does

DIRISALA BALA MURALI,PALACOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

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.452/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Dirisala Bala Murali Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.15-8-12/2 Ward-I Shavukarpet Palakol Palakol, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Asfpd4074J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita Nos.10090 & 10094/2017-18 Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2011-12. 2

section 68 of the Act. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of Sachdeva (supra) though related to sale of jewellery and the failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of sale, it was not related to the addition u/s 68. The case law relied 8 I.T.A. No.452/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 Dirisala Bala Murali, Palakol upon

HERMON EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 68 are being discussed below :- 9 ITA.No.347/VIZ./2024 6.4.1. Provisions of section 68 Even prior to the insertion

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:

section 68 has amounted to duplication. 9. For these and such other grounds, that may be urged at the time

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

9\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\nunaccounted income. It was also supported by the seized material in Annexure\nMMIL/A/46. Ld. DR also relied on the provisions of section 132(4A) of the\nAct which read as \"if any document is found in the possession or control of any\nperson

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. DONKALA CHENCHU NARASIMHA RAO, NELLORE

section 68 r.w.s.\n115BBE of the Act.\n13. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) on verification of the submissions\nmade by the assessee deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO by allowing the\nappeal of the assessee.\n14. On being aggrieved

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)

9 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. Ground Nos.2 & 3 are with respect to the addition of Rs.1,94,99,178/- made under section 68

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)

9 I.T.A. No. 162/VIZ/2023 Sri Rajani Gold SBNs from cash sales as illegal and therebyinvoking the provisions of section 69A is not valid in law. ..” 17. In our considered view, the provisions of section 68

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

9\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\nunaccounted income. It was also supported by the seized material in Annexure\nMMIL/A/46. Ld. DR also relied on the provisions of section 132(4A) of the\nAct which read as \"if any document is found in the possession or control

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.

68 of the Act: Rs. 3,47,97,000/-. 4 Ranar Agrochem Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although, the CIT(A) directed the AO to consider the assessee’s claim that the unreconciled receipt of Rs. 1,35,680/- was accounted for in the next financial year

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.1,85,32,322/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order

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

section 68 r.w.s.\n115BBE of the Act.\n13.\nOn being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) on verification of the submissions\nmade by the assessee deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO by allowing the\nappeal of the assessee.\n14.\nOn being aggrieved

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIKAS KUMAR CHHAJER, VIZIANAGARAM

Bench: Us:

9,22,76,960/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order

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

9. The other grounds relate to the addition made by the Revenue Authorities by disallowing the investment made by the various shareholders in the share capital and share premium of the assessee company as unexplained under section 68

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

9. The other grounds relate to the addition made by the Revenue Authorities by disallowing the investment made by the various shareholders in the share capital and share premium of the assessee company as unexplained under section 68

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

68 of the Act. 8. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that though it is a matter of fact that the AO to verify the genuineness of the gift transaction had, in the course of the assessment proceedings, issued a notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the assessee’s daughter, viz. Smt. Neelam Kumari

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM vs. VIJAYANAGARAM WHEAT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KONDAKARAKAM

section 68 of the Act.\nTherefore, in the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, we find no infirmity in\nthe order of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore no interference is required.\nAccordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.\n14. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.\nC.O. No. 7/VIZ/2024\n15. Assessee has raised following grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

9\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025\nVenkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd., 552\nat each branch/unit was fixed. in turn. I-d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated\nthe fact that the key Employee Smt C Padmaja manages all these\nunaccounted cash collections from various branches/units of the assessee\ncompany and in turn handed Over