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

investment made by the various shareholders in the share capital and share premium of the assessee company as unexplained under section 68

ASHA SANGHAVI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , RAJAHMUNDRY

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.33/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Asha Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-22-12 Ward-2 Nandepu Heights Rajamahendravaram T.Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Awfps2816R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

invested the entire sums credited in the bank account for the purpose of trading the commodities through Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited through Steel City Commodities Private Ltd., and had incurred the loss of Rs.1,29,69,131/-. The assessee also submitted the date wise proof and the copies of the statements of Steel City Commodities. Therefore, argued that

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

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 5,60,54,868/- as unexplained investment

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

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 5,60,54,868/- as unexplained investment

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

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 5,60,54,868/- as unexplained investment

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

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 5,60,54,868/- as unexplained investment

DECCAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

unexplained investment" and falls well within the scope and ambit of section 69 of the IT Act and, thus, attracting the provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessing officer by not applying the provisions of sec 115BBE not only erred but also caused prejudice to the revenue. 8.8. That leaves us with the another issue of excess

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

investments made by the partners are added in the name of the firm as unsubstantiated cash credits under section 68 of the Act. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that all the partners filed their affidavit and having PAN numbers and also their return of incomes, and therefore, if at all addition has to be made

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

investments made by the partners are added in the name of the firm as unsubstantiated cash credits under section 68 of the Act. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that all the partners filed their affidavit and having PAN numbers and also their return of incomes, and therefore, if at all addition has to be made

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

investments made by the partners are added in the name of the firm as unsubstantiated cash credits under section 68 of the Act. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that all the partners filed their affidavit and having PAN numbers and also their return of incomes, and therefore, if at all addition has to be made

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

investments made by the partners are added in the name of the firm as unsubstantiated cash credits under section 68 of the Act. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that all the partners filed their affidavit and having PAN numbers and also their return of incomes, and therefore, if at all addition has to be made

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

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

unexplained sum under section 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

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

unexplained sum under section 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

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

unexplained sum under section 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

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)

investment in the firm remains unexplained, we are inclined Page No. 7 I.T.A. No. 267/VIZ/2024 Aravind Reddy Devagiri to sustain the order of the Assessing Officer on this ground. Accordingly Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 5 is with respect to the addition made for an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- under section 68

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

invest such a huge amounts as share application money in the company and the assessee has not produced the details to the satisfaction of the AO. As a result, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income as per the provision of 68 to the extent of Rs.3,99,00,000/- and with regard

DEEKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO (HUF),TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Bench: Us:

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that as the order passed by the CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any substance was liable to be dismissed. 14. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives