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

96,000 by way of cheques, the details of which are\navailable in the sale deed. However, the impounded Material which is extracted\nbelow shows the details of cash payment of Rs.1,22,04,0000/- which is added to\nthe details of cheque payments made towards the purchase of land.\nPage. No 5\nI.T.A.No.408/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.No.460/VIZ/2025\nDonakala Chenchu Narasimha

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

96,10,000/-. Therefore, Assessing Officer held the balance amount of Rs. 1,06,27,000/- outstanding in the books of accounts at the end of the year as unexplained sum under section 68

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

96,10,000/-. Therefore, Assessing Officer held the balance amount of Rs. 1,06,27,000/- outstanding in the books of accounts at the end of the year as unexplained sum under section 68

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

96,10,000/-. Therefore, Assessing Officer held the balance amount of Rs. 1,06,27,000/- outstanding in the books of accounts at the end of the year as unexplained sum under section 68

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

Bench: Us:

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 8 Vikas Kumar Chhajer dated 21.03.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,96

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

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)

96,164/- should not have been disallowed and added to the returned income. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that once the disallowance of the mployee share is disallowed u/s 36(1)(va), it becomes a permanent disallowance and is against the principles of natural justice. 6. The CIT(A) failed in appreciating the fact that

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]

96,754/-. He further contended that the CPC is not justified in disallowing the employees share of contribution of PF and ESI on account of late payment, even though the same were paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments

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

68 of the Act. Further, Ld. AO also observed that assessee has claimed\ndeduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income\nderived from the investments made in the Fixed Deposits with KDCC Bank\nLimited. Ld. AO by relying on the decision in the case of Pr.CIT v. Totgars Co-\noperative Society

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 153A only on the basis 15 of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 17. It has further been held that: “On the date

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 153A only on the basis 15 of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 17. It has further been held that: “On the date

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 153A only on the basis 15 of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 17. It has further been held that: “On the date

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

96,280/- as gross total income in response to notice u/s 148 on 28.09.2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that there was total cash deposit of Rs.32,12,000/- in assessee’s bank account. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the cash deposit, the assessee explained that the assessee received 1/4th of his share of Rs.2

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POTLURI PHANENDRS BABU , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Potluri Phanendra Babu Ward – 3(2) 1St Floor, Infinity Towers, Visakhapatnam Sankara Matham Road Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agspp7638K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.132/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.491/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) Sri Potluri Phanendra Babu Vs. Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, Infinity Towers, Ward – 3(2) Sankara Matham Road Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agspp7638K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

96,000 2 Cash deposit 26.05.2011 20,04,000 3 Cash deposit 27.05.2011 5,00,000 4 Cash deposit 14.06.2011 3,09,750 5 Cash deposit 04.07.2011 25,00,000 6 Cash deposit 05.08.2011 10,00,000 7 Cash deposit 07.09.2011 20,00,000 8 Cash deposit 08.09.2011 6,00,000 9 Cash deposit 21.09.2011 5,00,000 10 Cash

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68,023/- and interest on bank loans for Rs. 96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68,023/- and interest on bank loans for Rs. 96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68,023/- and interest on bank loans for Rs. 96,48,764/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,73,16,783/-) which resulted in loss of Rs.1,71,90,586/-and the same was claimed for set off against the income from other sources, business and capital gains under section