MANORAMA ENTERPRISES,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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.385/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Manorama Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.31-32-41 Tds, Ward-1 Near Leelamahal Theatre Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadfm5585H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.L.N.Somayajulu, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

140 Q4 9,180 Total 28,130 3. Against the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs.400/- and confirmed the balance amount of Rs.27,730/-. 4. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

140/- was shown under the head ‘closing stock’ towards unsold site at Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Thus, the expenditure towards site cost relevant to AY 2010-11 works out to Rs. 20,15,420/- in pursuance to the development agreement entered with one Sri Muddu Sudhakar S/o. Sri Venkata Rao, a non-resident and Sri Akundi Lakshmi Narayana Rao S/o. Sri Satyanarayana

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

140/- was shown under the head ‘closing stock’ towards unsold site at Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Thus, the expenditure towards site cost relevant to AY 2010-11 works out to Rs. 20,15,420/- in pursuance to the development agreement entered with one Sri Muddu Sudhakar S/o. Sri Venkata Rao, a non-resident and Sri Akundi Lakshmi Narayana Rao S/o. Sri Satyanarayana

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

140/- was shown under the head ‘closing stock’ towards unsold site at Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Thus, the expenditure towards site cost relevant to AY 2010-11 works out to Rs. 20,15,420/- in pursuance to the development agreement entered with one Sri Muddu Sudhakar S/o. Sri Venkata Rao, a non-resident and Sri Akundi Lakshmi Narayana Rao S/o. Sri Satyanarayana

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

140/- was shown under the head ‘closing stock’ towards unsold site at Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Thus, the expenditure towards site cost relevant to AY 2010-11 works out to Rs. 20,15,420/- in pursuance to the development agreement entered with one Sri Muddu Sudhakar S/o. Sri Venkata Rao, a non-resident and Sri Akundi Lakshmi Narayana Rao S/o. Sri Satyanarayana

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

140/- by making addition towards difference in sale consideration of Rs.13,98,800/-, additions towards 20% of disallowance of direct expenses, addition towards 30% of disallowance of rent paid under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

140/- by making addition towards difference in sale consideration of Rs.13,98,800/-, additions towards 20% of disallowance of direct expenses, addition towards 30% of disallowance of rent paid under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS

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:

TDS certificates. b) The services rendered for procurement of paddy, although facilitated through PACS and on behalf of members, ultimately relate to a contractual arrangement with APSCSCL, which is a separate legal entity and not a member of the appellant society. c) The principle of mutuality, which is the basis for exemption under Section 80P, breaks down when income arises

THE, ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,, TENALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and

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

section 45Q of the RBI Act shall have overriding effect over the income recognition. The Hon’ble High Court has considered the issue with regard to the method of accounting applied for recognizing the income and held that the method of accounting followed by the assessee is in accordance with the accounting practice. 9. The assessee also relied

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU AVNASH, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

140 and 141 of the seized material marked as Annexure/A/ATR/PO/Res/1 etc. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO enquired as to why the sum Rs. 1,69,00,000/- appearing as “sundry creditors” should not be regarded as genuine transaction and thus, be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition

THE ITO, WARD-2, ELURU, ELURU vs. M/S THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

THE ACIT., CIRCLE - 1, ELURU, ELURU vs. M/S THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,, ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

M/S THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,ELURU vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, ELURU, ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

THE ACIT,, ELURU vs. M/S. THE DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

M/S THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,ELURU vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, ELURU, ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,,ELURU vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,,ELURU vs. THE ACIT,, ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS and assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 22. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are related to the addition of ` 12,52,25,946/- relating overdue interest on Non performing assets. This issue

THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. ABC ENGINEERING WORKERS,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

TDS certificates and the gross receipts admitted by the assessee in the profit and loss account and arrived at the difference of Rs.7,98,79,632/- short admission by the assessee. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO neither examined the gross receipts nor considered for estimation of income by the AO, hence, set aside the order

M/S ABC ENGINEERING WORKS,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DCIT,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

TDS certificates and the gross receipts admitted by the assessee in the profit and loss account and arrived at the difference of Rs.7,98,79,632/- short admission by the assessee. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO neither examined the gross receipts nor considered for estimation of income by the AO, hence, set aside the order