A.SRINIVASA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Sri A.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.48-13-20/1, F.No.Sf2 Ward-1(4) Sri Krishna Sai Residency Visakhapatnam Janaki Rama Street Visakhapatnam [Pan :Adhpa2185Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited

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. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited

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. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited

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

Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited

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

section 68 of the Act. 20. Per contra, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the sale prices of the shares of the Sri Bhagwan Builders Private Limited and Shri Bhagwan Niketan Limited are abnormal and the assessee used it as the devise to explain the sources for the investment in the assessee company. He therefore pleaded that

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

section 68 of the Act. 20. Per contra, it was the submission of the Ld. DR that the sale prices of the shares of the Sri Bhagwan Builders Private Limited and Shri Bhagwan Niketan Limited are abnormal and the assessee used it as the devise to explain the sources for the investment in the assessee company. He therefore pleaded that

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

money payment for property purchase under Section 69 of the Act. Separately, for another assessment year, cash loans totaling Rs. 88,87,000/- were treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

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.

unexplained cash credits under section 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

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was\nenhanced from 30% to 60%, was applicable only to the transactions from 01.4.2017 and\ncould not be applied retrospectively. The Ld.AR submitted that the Tribunal in its\naforesaid orders had specifically observed that the higher rate of tax @60% under\nsection 115BBE of the Act was applicable

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

Section 68 of the Act" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer for on-money payment and unexplained

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

unexplained cash credit under 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

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 does not need any introduction. To summarise, it taxes any credit appearing in the books of an assessee, where the assessee is not able to or not satisfactorily able to explain the nature and source of 10 ITA.No.347/VIZ./2024 such credit. It is a deeming fiction, which taxes a credit as income on unsatisfactory explanation about nature

SRI LAXMI NARAYANA JUTE MILLS(P) LIMITED,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, VIZIANAGARAM

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.399 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) M/S Sri Laxmi Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Jute Mills (P) Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.7-106, Cheepurupalli Street Vizianagaram Bobbili Vizianagaram Dist. [Pan:Aalcs1654C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 16.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

money as unexplained cash credit and allowed the set off the addition against the loss declared by the assessee. Subsequently rectified the assessment u/s 115BBE by withdrawing the set off of loss already allowed and taxed the addition separately @30% u/s 115BBE of the Act. As per section 115BBE in sub section 2, not to allow

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

unexplained cash credit under 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

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)

Money for the purpose of any transaction except for depositing in bank stating that Government of India notified Rs.1000 and Rs.500 will not be a legal tender w.e.f. 09.11.2016. Considering the above facts, Ld.AO found that the assessee was owner of the cash deposited into bank account, but has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source

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

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)

money on 15/12/2010. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee firm had not filed any proof in support of the said claim. The Assessing Officer, thus, treated the impugned amount of Rs. 9,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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)

money on 15/12/2010. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee firm had not filed any proof in support of the said claim. The Assessing Officer, thus, treated the impugned amount of Rs. 9,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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)

money on 15/12/2010. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee firm had not filed any proof in support of the said claim. The Assessing Officer, thus, treated the impugned amount of Rs. 9,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68