SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee u/s 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contented respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses (c) to (f) under section 200A

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee u/s 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the contented respondent-revenue that insertion of clauses (c) to (f) under section 200A

EISWAR EAXPORTS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Eswar Exports, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-6, D.No. 23-14-13, Chinnamvari Visakhapatnam. Street, Visakhapatnam. Tan No. Vpne00441A (Appellant) (Respondent)

201(1A). Subsequently, the JCIT (TDS) issued a show-cause notice why penalty should not be levied under section 271C of the Act. In response, assessee submitted that due to financial crisis, deducted TDS was not paid to the Government account and so far non-deduction of TDS, it is submitted that due to mistake of the Finance Manager, TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAVIKUMAR BURUGUPALLI, WEST GODAVARI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 198/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) V. Ravikumar Burugupalli Income Tax Office Proprietor Sasi Fuel Infinity Towers, Ground Floor Sasi School, Main Road Sankaramatam Road Velivenu Post Visakhapatnam - 530016 West Godavari District – 534329 [Pan:Ajzpb2139H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 38/Viz/2025 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.198/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17)] Ravikumar Burugupalli V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) Proprietor Sasi Fuel Income Tax Office Sasi School, Main Road Infinity Towers, Ground Floor Velivenu Post Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam - 530016 West Godavari District – 534329 [Pan:Ajzpb2139H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.03.2021. Cross objection is filed by the assessee in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.3,02,39,680/- from a Non-resident Individual

THE ITO(TDS) WARD-3(3), GUNTUR vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.511/Viz/2013 & 512/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. Executive Engineer Ward-3(3) Rural Water Supply Project Guntur Viswanadhapuram Podili, Prakasam Dist. [Pan : Hydro2981G] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.132 & 133/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.511 & 512/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Executive Engineer Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Rural Water Supply Project Ward-3(3) Viswanadhapuram Guntur Podili, Prakasam Dist. [Pan : Hydro2981G] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS u/s 201(1) for Rs.49,51,782/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.50,42,916/- for the A.Y. 2012-13. The AO also calculated penal interest u/s 201(1A) and raised total demand of Rs.66,11,236/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.62,06,477/- for the A.Y.2012-13. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Similar submissions were made before Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee as was made before Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(A) by relying on various judicial pronouncements dismissed the appeal

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Similar submissions were made before Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee as was made before Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(A) by relying on various judicial pronouncements dismissed the appeal

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.

TDS even before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The A.O disallowed Rs. 40,000/-u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by stating that the provision which is debited to P&L a/c was not an allowance expenditure for the year consideration. Submission of the appellant was perused which is devoid

KUSHALAVA SPINNERS & GINNERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

Bench: Us:

TDS Ward ('AO') u/s. 201(1A) of the IT Act dt. 28-10-2021, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, ex-parte, in view of the provisions of section

HERO WIRETEX LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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.37/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Hero Wiretex Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Anthakapalli Village Income Tax Ponduru Road, Rajam Central Circle-1 Vizianagarm Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcs 1425R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS was deducted. The CPC vide intimation u/s 143(1) dated 21.02.2020, disallowed 100% of the amount of Rs.32,46,77,307/- u/s 40(a)(ia), on account of non compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B. On appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 30% as per provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,36,57,662/-, vide his order passed u/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, dated 28.07.2021. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Section 201(1)/201(1A), dated 28.07.2021 before the CIT(A). 6. On a perusal of the record, we find that the principal contentions raised by the assessee before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1) (TDS), VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD., TIRUPATHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452-454/Viz/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Southern Power Circle-3(1) (Tds) Distribution Company Of Vijayawada A.P.Limited Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Kesavavayana Gunta Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1217/H/2010,517/Viz/2019 &518/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) M/S Southern Power Distribution Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Company Of A.P.Limited Income Tax Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Circle-3(1) (Tds) Kesavavayana Gunta Vijayawada Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.P.Rama Swami, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act and held that the transmission charges and SLDC charges paid by the assessee for the use of transmission network owned by AP Transco fall within the definition of royalty. Thus, held that the provisions of section 194J are squarely applicable for deduction of tax at source. 8 I.T.A. No.452-454/Viz/2010

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

2. In this case, the Assessee made payment to the APIIC without deducting tax at source. Therefore, in first round, the AO made the additions of Rs. 29,72,42,976/- u/sec. 201(1) and Rs. 17,83,45,620/- u/sec. 201(1A) of the Act, while observing that section 201(1) & 201(1A) provides consequences of failure to deduct

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

2. In this case, the Assessee made payment to the APIIC without deducting tax at source. Therefore, in first round, the AO made the additions of Rs. 29,72,42,976/- u/sec. 201(1) and Rs. 17,83,45,620/- u/sec. 201(1A) of the Act, while observing that section 201(1) & 201(1A) provides consequences of failure to deduct

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, disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444/361 ITR 432/[2013] 260 CTR 73/2012 SCC Online CAL 12147 dismissed the Revenue's appeal

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,KANURU vs. ITO, TDS, WARD(1), ELURU, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

201(1) of the Act working out the TDS totaling to Rs. 2,36,43,317/-. Subsequently, the Ld. AO observed that a mistake apparent on record in the calculation of non-deduction of TDS for Paddy Procuring Commission and later passed a rectification order U/s. 154 of the Act dated 02/12/2019 by enhancing

ADABALA MANMOHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Mr. Adabala Manmohan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Vpnao 1959 G Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that no time limit was mentioned, U/s 201 of the Act, for default in deduction of tax at source in respect of payments made to non-residents of India, but the judiciary in several cases held that the reasonable time limit of 4 years from the date of payment is applicable

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and the ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld the order the of the Ld.CIT(A) and held that the payment was in the nature of royalty and payment of brand fee attracts the TDS at 10% u/s 194J of I.T.Act

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,SRIKAKULAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and the ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld the order the of the Ld.CIT(A) and held that the payment was in the nature of royalty and payment of brand fee attracts the TDS at 10% u/s 194J of I.T.Act