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

section 68\nof the Act.\n8. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee and its\nfamily members had invested in M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited and\nM/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO found that initially huge share capital\nwas invested by several companies based at Kolkata and Delhi. The shares\nwere allotted

THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained Demand Drafts issued by the assessee society: Rs.19,76,90

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained Demand Drafts issued by the assessee society: Rs.19,76,90

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

section 68\nof the Act.\n\n8. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee and its\nfamily members had invested in M/s. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited and\nM/s. GVA Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO found that initially huge share capital\nwas invested by several companies based at Kolkata and Delhi. The shares\nwere allotted

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 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

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

90,000/- per acre in cash over and above the document\nvalue has paid by the assessee-company out of the cash generated from\nunaccounted sale of eggs as unaccounted investment amounting to\nRs.3,04,76,250/-. Ld. AO also observed various investments made by the\nDirectors of the Company arising out of unaccounted cash generation. Further,\nit was also

SIONC PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

DASARI BUJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

TETALI ANIL KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

EASTERN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

T SRINIVASA RAO&CO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

SRI RANGA MOTORS,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

90,000/- per acre in cash over and above the document\nvalue has paid by the assessee-company out of the cash generated from\nunaccounted sale of eggs as unaccounted investment amounting to\nRs.3,04,76,250/-. Ld. AO also observed various investments made by the\nDirectors of the Company arising out of unaccounted cash generation. Further,\nit was also

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

90,000/-. Subsequently, on verification of balance sheet for the AY 2012-13 and AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO found that there is an increase of Rs. 13,18,19,000/- in 3 investment and observed that this investment was not commensurate with the sources of the funds as per the balance sheet. The Ld. AO therefore reopened

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also observed difference in commission of sales\namounting to Rs. 10,67,285/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. Further Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has claimed Rs.95,42,395/-\nas handling charges in the Profit & Loss