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 :

TDS deductible by the assessee under section 195 of the Act was correctly made by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1) of the Act and rightly upheld by the learned CIT (Appeals) at Rs. 13,82,870 being 20.4% of the sale consideration of Rs. 61,62,500 and consequently dismiss this ground of the assessee. Since the facts

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

201(1A) of the Act which were challenged before the ld. Commissioner. 10.1 The Ld. Commissioner while adjudicating specific ground 7 by which the Assessee has raised the issue that APIIC is an entity covered under the provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and therefore exempted from TDS

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

201(1A) of the Act which were challenged before the ld. Commissioner. 10.1 The Ld. Commissioner while adjudicating specific ground 7 by which the Assessee has raised the issue that APIIC is an entity covered under the provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and therefore exempted from 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

TDS on the above payments towards purchase of the property. Ld. AO thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 22.12.2020 requiring the assessee to show cause why the order under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act should not be passed considering the assessee as “assessee in default”. The assessee submitted response to the Ld.AO stating that

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 returns is a relevant point to be noted. Thus, taking totality of facts and circumstances into account and after reappraisal of the position in view of the submissions made and material filed, I am of the considered opinion that there is no liability under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for both the assessment years under consideration and accordingly

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)

section 201(1) of the Act. The Addl. CIT(TDS) also rejected the plea of the assessee that TDS sums would be remitted only after preparation of books. The Addl.CIT (TDS) thus concluded that the assessee–deductor committed default in non-remittance of TDS into Government account within time without any reasonable cause and accordingly levied penalty u/sec. 271C

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:

3 (1) of section 139'. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared

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

201(1). 3. Not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the AO observed that it is true that though there was no provision for deduction of tax at source u/s 194I till 31.03.2007, the Act has been amended w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to provide for TDS on leasing of equipment. The AO further observed that the TDS is required

THE ITO (TDS), RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S. OM SAI RAM, ENTERPRISES,, MANDAPETA

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Tds Ward-1 Ravulapalem Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.70/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ravulapalem Tds Ward-1 Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2019 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

TDS and the assessee’s case falls under section 194C(1)(3) of the Act for supply of material. The Ld.CIT(A) found that the AO had arrived at the liability of Rs.11.93 lakhs for the assessee’s default u/s 201

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

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

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

TDS. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken cognizance of the fact that when the said capital gains was assessed and tax demand was raised in the hands of the said NRI payee, under such circumstances, upholding the finding of the AO that the appellant is assessee in default, u/s. 201

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)

TDS provisions. Accordingly the proceedings u/s 201(1) and the order 201(1A) has no merit and the order dated 28.7.2021 is quashed. Accordingly the AO is directed to delete the demands raised. Hence, the ground No 2 and 3 are allowed. 7. To sum up the appeal is allowed.” DCIT vs. Sri Narasimharaju Kanumuri 9. The revenue being aggrieved

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

3. Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by Ld.AO u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the IT Act, holding assessee as 'assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1)/(1A), when in reality no TDS

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:

201 of the IT Act without proper appreciation of facts on record and without considering properly the written submissions made, is illegal. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that provisions of section 206AA would be applicable in the case of an appellant who correctly deducted TDS