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

NANNEBOYINA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (WARD IT), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy V. Income Tax Officer C/O. C.R. Hemanthkumar Ward International Taxation Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex. H.No 9-14-4/7, Flat No. 7 M.G. Road, Vijayawada Sowbhagyaapartments Andhra Pradesh – 520002 Cbm Compound, Vip Road Andhra Pradesh - 530003 [Pan: Cuepk3530P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS Statement – payment made to ICICI Bank Ltd., Rs. 78,133/- Non-residents 3. Ld. AO observed that assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration, he therefore considered the above transactions as income escaping the assessment and issued show-cause notice under section 148A(b) to the assessee on 07.03.2023. In response, assessee

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:

8. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Maintenance Team as listed in Article-4 & 5 of the Agreement made available in page 109 to 110 clearly stated that qualified Engineers are used in the execution of BMHS. The Ld. DR therefore pleaded that the assessee has engaged engineering services which are professional

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

13) of the Act (\"the impugned Assessment Order\") stated to\nhave been issued owing to the alleged failures to comply with all the\nterms of the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, is rather, in effect an Order u/s\n144 of the Act, which suffers from being beyond the limitation specified u/s\n153 of the Act.\n3.\nThat

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered

S V V S S D S S SCHOOL,ANNAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74 To 89/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Svvssdss School, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Annavaram. Tds, Ward-1, Pan: Afipa 2580 C Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 03/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

8. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka) observed that “one may at the first blush say that, since the section 234E is a charging section for fee, the liability was generated or had accrued, if there was failure to deliver or cause to be delivered