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:

23,82,970 4. Disallowance of pay leaves and sick leaves (Rs. 12,01,926 10,48,088 + Rs. 1,53,838) Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while considering the submissions made by the assessee‟s Representative relied on the decision of his predecessor

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRABHU KISHORE VALLURUPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and\nrevenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification of actual disallowances. The addition on account of rental income was deleted, considering the property was vacant for a period.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "142(1)", "23

LAKSHMI PRASUNAMBA KODALI,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 279/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Lakshmi Prasunamba Kodali, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Cxrpk7177G Circle-International Tax, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri S.V. Rao Associates ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

23,020/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for complete scrutiny for the reason viz., “high ratio of refund to TDS related to section

ARKHA SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDARY vs. DCIT-1 , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Arkha Solar Power Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax-1, Elakolanu Village, 4Th Floor, Sri Deepthi Towers, Rangampeta, Rajahmundry, Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533294. Andhra Pradesh-533001. Pan: Aalca 4293K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

23,836/- and deducted the TDS of Rs. 10,67,625/-. On examination of the TP documents for benchmarking the transaction, the Ld. TPO concurred with the CUP method as the most appropriate method under the given facts of the case. The Ld. TPO also observed that the assessee’s selection of final comparables is inappropriate and arbitrary

COMMANDANT,MANGALAGIRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-2, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2019 To 582/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16 ) Commandant, 6Th Bn Apsp Income Tax Officer (Tds) Camp, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaagc1899L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

COMMANDANT ,MANGALAGIRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-2, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2019 To 582/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16 ) Commandant, 6Th Bn Apsp Income Tax Officer (Tds) Camp, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaagc1899L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

COMMANDANT ,MANGALAGIRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2019 To 582/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16 ) Commandant, 6Th Bn Apsp Income Tax Officer (Tds) Camp, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaagc1899L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

COMMANDANT,MANGALAGIRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2019 To 582/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16 ) Commandant, 6Th Bn Apsp Income Tax Officer (Tds) Camp, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaagc1899L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

COMMANDANT,MANGALAGIRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2019 To 582/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16 ) Commandant, 6Th Bn Apsp Income Tax Officer (Tds) Camp, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaagc1899L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

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

23,140/- 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

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

23,140/- 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

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

23,140/- 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

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

23,140/- 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