GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

3,73,754/- (after claiming TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 84,676/- on 07/03/2020 and arrived at the balance tax liability of Rs. 2,89,080/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 5. Thereafter, the assessee, in response to notice under section

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

3,73,754/- (after claiming TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 84,676/- on 07/03/2020 and arrived at the balance tax liability of Rs. 2,89,080/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 5. Thereafter, the assessee, in response to notice under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

TDS) on the payments made to M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises, as against the purchases made during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO, based on his conviction that 4 DCIT vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa the assessee has failed to justify the purchases of Rs. 4,99,65,247/-, passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

TDS) on the total amount of Rs. 1,11,20,502/- which was clearly mentioned in Form-26AS, and the credit of the said amount of tax deducted at source was claimed by the assessee in his return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, the entire amount so credited/received from

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

section C.O.No. 126/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Co. Ltd.) 194(3)(iii)(f) of the Act. Therefore, all sequences resulted into multi and prolonged litigations. However as the controversy has been settled by the Ld. Commissioner while considering and allowing the alternative claim of the Assessee raised by ground no. 7 wherein it was claimed that without prejudice

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

section C.O.No. 126/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Co. Ltd.) 194(3)(iii)(f) of the Act. Therefore, all sequences resulted into multi and prolonged litigations. However as the controversy has been settled by the Ld. Commissioner while considering and allowing the alternative claim of the Assessee raised by ground no. 7 wherein it was claimed that without prejudice

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.68/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kanakamahalakshmi Co- Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd., Circle-1(1) D.No.49-34-22, Main Road, Visakhapatnam Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacft 6489 J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.59/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.68/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Kanakamahalakshmi Co- Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax D.No.49-34-22, Main Road, Circle-1(1) Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacft 6489 J] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

13 are general in nature which does not require any, therefore the same are dismissed. 3. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 relate to interest on share capital paid to the members of the bank. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee had debited an amount of Rs.94,00,000/- for Assessment Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

M. NAGI REDDY COMPANY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

13,55,040/-. 3. As the assessee firm did not comply with the aforesaid notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act and failed to place on record the requisite details/ information, therefore, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019 was issued to him with a specific observation that in case the requisite Page

M. NAGI REDDY COMPANY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

13,55,040/-. 3. As the assessee firm did not comply with the aforesaid notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act and failed to place on record the requisite details/ information, therefore, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019 was issued to him with a specific observation that in case the requisite Page

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

TDS) were deposited, and only the balance amount of Rs. 28,41,320/- was received in his bank account. 4. The A.O observed, that the assessee while computing the “capital gain” on the sale of the subject properties during the year under consideration, had reduced the abovementioned payments aggregating to Rs. 9 crores (supra) as an expenditure that was claimed

MARIAPPAN AUSTIN PRAKASH,BENGALURU, KANRNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTL TXN CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short\n'Act') vide order dated 10.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2022-23.\nI.T.A.No.89/VIZ/2025\nVijay Mariappan Austin Prakash --\n2.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee being a Non-Resident Individual\nfiled his return of income on 17.07.2022 admitting a taxable income of\nRs.9,21,280/- and exempt income