THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY. LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, I.T.A. No. 359/VIZ/2019 filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

TDS, such institution should be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette after recording reasons whereas the Assessee company itself has admitted that there is no such notification for APIIC.” 9.1 For ready reference we are also reproducing the relevant provisions of section 194A of the Act:- 194A. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY CO. LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, I.T.A. No. 359/VIZ/2019 filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

TDS, such institution should be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette after recording reasons whereas the Assessee company itself has admitted that there is no such notification for APIIC.” 9.1 For ready reference we are also reproducing the relevant provisions of section 194A of the Act:- 194A. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.A.Rahim, I.T.P सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. 23. Further, it is noticed that Hon'ble. ITAT, Chennai held in the case of Tamilnadu Cricket

GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

10,31,752. 4. Apropos the paddy procurement commission, the AO was of the view that as the same was received by the assessee society from a non- member, thus, the same was ineligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The AO was, further of the view that the interest income earned

SLC PROJECTS PVT.LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

iii) . This amendment also strengthen the claim that now only detail for "block of assets" has to be maintained and not separately for each asset. 7.1 The above case law relied up on by the assessee does not help the assessee. The question in the instant case is whether the block of assets consisting of vehicles which were claimed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

TDS was not deducted by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld.AO under disallowance of interest U/s. 36(1)(iii), CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2010-11 in the assessee’s own case with out considering the fact that

NUTHALAPATI RAVI SHANKAR,,PALACOLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PALACOLE

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.13 & 14/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) Thangirala Immanuel, Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.16/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Smt.Suman Malik, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019

iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘Act’) in respect of the following allowances : 3 I.T.A. No.13,14, 16 & 25/Viz/2019 Thangirala Immanuel, Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao, Nuthalapalli Ravi Shankar, Palakol Allowance for Fixed Conveyance Procuring

THANGIRALA IMMANUEL,PALACOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.13 & 14/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) Thangirala Immanuel, Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.16/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Smt.Suman Malik, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019

iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘Act’) in respect of the following allowances : 3 I.T.A. No.13,14, 16 & 25/Viz/2019 Thangirala Immanuel, Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao, Nuthalapalli Ravi Shankar, Palakol Allowance for Fixed Conveyance Procuring

THANGIRALA IMMANUEL,PALAKOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALAKOL

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.13 & 14/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) Thangirala Immanuel, Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.16/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Smt.Suman Malik, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019

iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘Act’) in respect of the following allowances : 3 I.T.A. No.13,14, 16 & 25/Viz/2019 Thangirala Immanuel, Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao, Nuthalapalli Ravi Shankar, Palakol Allowance for Fixed Conveyance Procuring

SRI SEETARAMANJANENYA SORTEX,KAKINADA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS on interest payment, the assessee submitted that interest of Rs.1,04,10,886/- debited to P&L account is against the bank loan of Rs.11,16,33,331/- from Andhra Bank and ECL Finance Limited. As per 4 I.T.A. No.147/Viz/2023, A.Y.2018-19 Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex, Kakinada proviso of section 194A(3)(iii

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

TDS of Rs. 1,86,790/-). Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao 4. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee to place on record documentary evidence to support his claim for multi- facet deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

TDS of Rs. 1,86,790/-). Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao 4. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee to place on record documentary evidence to support his claim for multi- facet deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10) ordains that if between the eligible undertaking and the assessee, the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee in the eligible business more than the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business for the purpose of deduction under section 8OIA, the assessing officer would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10) ordains that if between the eligible undertaking and the assessee, the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee in the eligible business more than the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business for the purpose of deduction under section 8OIA, the assessing officer would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10) ordains that if between the eligible undertaking and the assessee, the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee in the eligible business more than the ordinary profits, which might be expected to arise in such eligible business for the purpose of deduction under section 8OIA, the assessing officer would

M/S THE BHEEMUNIPATNAM MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-6(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14) M/S. The Bheemunipatnam Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Mutually Aided Cooperative Ward-6(1), Building Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaaat 5114 H (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Y.A. Rao प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 11/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

TDS has been grossed up as per the provisions of section 195A of the Act @ 10%. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in para 4.3.2 of his order that the assessee has not provided the PAN details of the payee Mr. A. Venkateswarlu even during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore rejected the plea of the assessee

TEKI VENKATA RAMA RAO,,KAKINADA vs. THE ITO,, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.151/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Sri Teki Venkata Ramana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-2-10 (International Taxation) Seshasai Street Kakinada Ramarao Peta Kakinada, E.G.Dist [Pan :Affpt6413G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 10.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

section 139; 10 Sri Teki Venkata Ramana Rao, Kakinada (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form

SUBBA RAO JALADI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

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

10,00,000 or more in a Saving Bank Account Valued at Rs. 4,24,50,900/-. iii. TDS Return - Payment to Contractor (Section