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

94\nITR 616 (Bom.) it was held that though the income tax authorities are not\nstrictly bound by the rigors of technical rules of evidence, they are not\nprecluded from invoking the principles contained in the Evidence Act\nwhenever the occasion demands. Although the decision was rendered in\nthe context of Section 110 of the Evidence

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

94\nITR 616 (Bom.) it was held that though the income tax authorities are not\nstrictly bound by the rigors of technical rules of evidence, they are not\nprecluded from invoking the principles contained in the Evidence Act\nwhenever the occasion demands. Although the decision was rendered in\nthe context of Section 110 of the Evidence Act.\n15.\nThe

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

94,896/- to the entities which are not registered under\nGST. In this connection Ld. AO issued notice under section 142(1) dated\n06.02.2024. Assessee filed its response on 13.02.2024 stating that there was a\ndata entry error in Sr. No. 44 of Form 3CD while furnish the Form 3CD on-line.\nAssessee submitted the physical copy

THE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT CO OP MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ,ELURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe West Godavari District Co-Op. Marketing Society Ltd., Eluru, 25-55, Opposite To Fire Station N.R. Pet Eluru - 534006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaaat7717Q V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Visakhapatnam - 1 ……………… Respondent

68,94,925 on investment with the bank. Accordingly, the learned PCIT held that the assessment order dated 25.09.2022, passed under section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act, is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) set aside the assessment order on the issue

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

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. 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

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

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

94 which is\nextracted below:-\nM/s. WALTAIR TRADERS, Visakhapatnam\nProfit & Loss Account for the year ended 31st March, 2018\nEXPENDITURE\nRs\nINCOME\nRs\nBy Coal & Coke Sales\n1.15.27.03 948\n95.42 395\n10.72.663\n5.94.65.013\n1,22,27,84,018\nBy Closing Stock\n1.21.15.70 132\n11 13.886\n1.22.27,84,018\nTo Opening Stock\nTo Coal & Coke Purchase\nCoal Handling Charges\nPlot Rent

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.486/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs2464C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Samuel Nagadesi, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

94,46,710/- on 30/09/2015. Based on the information received, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee company received accommodation entries for fictitious loan of Rs. 1.80 Crs from Shri Joginder Pal Gupta / M/s. Bell Indus Fibercom Pvt Ltd. Subsequently, the Ld. AO issued a notice U/s. 148 of the Act on 31/03/2021. In response, the assessee in its reply

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

68,28,94,283/-, the amount claimed as expenditure which is capitalized. The AO was of the view that the amounts not actually paid but debited to profit & loss account only to be capitalized and thus he opined that the assessee’s case is a clear case of employing a device to increase its capital without paying taxes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. SEETHA VENKATA LAKSHMI RAVIPATI, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

94 taxmann.com 422 (Calcutta) 257 Taxman 58. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before and / or at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that all these above additions be restored

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

94,850/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/-. Assessing Officer(AO) completed the assessment and passed an order u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019, assessing the income at Rs.28,24,850/- by making addition of Rs.17,30,002/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained gifts received by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order

GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1),, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

7. 19.12.2007 30,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.13 8. 28.12.2007 6,50,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.14 9. 18.02.2008 15,00,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.6 10. 23.02.2008 5,00,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.17 11. 15.03.2008 2,29,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.7 Total 68

GOLLA NARAYANARAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. AD CIT, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

7. 19.12.2007 30,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.13 8. 28.12.2007 6,50,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.14 9. 18.02.2008 15,00,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.6 10. 23.02.2008 5,00,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.17 11. 15.03.2008 2,29,000 S S & S K/1/1 Page No.7 Total 68