SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,,RAJAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

TDS on the payments have been effected by the lessees. The authorised representative also submitted that the assessee had offered the impugned payments for the purpose of FBT from A.Y.2006-07 to A.Y.2009-10. It was further submitted that the assessee had claimed these amounts as business deduction in the earlier years and was allowed by the Department. It was submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD,, RAJAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

TDS on the payments have been effected by the lessees. The authorised representative also submitted that the assessee had offered the impugned payments for the purpose of FBT from A.Y.2006-07 to A.Y.2009-10. It was further submitted that the assessee had claimed these amounts as business deduction in the earlier years and was allowed by the Department. It was submitted that

THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE MILLS PVT LTD,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

TDS on the payments have been effected by the lessees. The authorised representative also submitted that the assessee had offered the impugned payments for the purpose of FBT from A.Y.2006-07 to A.Y.2009-10. It was further submitted that the assessee had claimed these amounts as business deduction in the earlier years and was allowed by the Department. It was submitted that

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

240/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee, inter alia, had claimed before the CIT(A) that the compensation received by him on the compulsory acquisition of his land as per the award u/s 3E(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, bearing Award No. 8 of 2022, dated 04.02.2022 was exempt

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

TDS and the capital gains tax payable by the assessee. 34 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala 37. Thereafter, the purchasers as per the terms of the MoU, dated 13.06.2019 had at the time when the registered sale deed was executed, inter alia, directly made payments aggregating to Rs. 7 crores out of the sale consideration to the aforementioned

NUTHALAPATI RAVI SHANKAR,,PALACOLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PALACOLE

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.13 & 14/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) Thangirala Immanuel, Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.16/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Smt.Suman Malik, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019

240 (i) Thangirala Immanuel 2011-12 6,97,120 (ii) AvadhanulaSrinivasaRao 2011-12 9,88,360 (iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘Act’) in respect of the following allowances : 3 I.T.A. No.13

THANGIRALA IMMANUEL,PALACOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.13 & 14/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) Thangirala Immanuel, Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.16/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Smt.Suman Malik, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019

240 (i) Thangirala Immanuel 2011-12 6,97,120 (ii) AvadhanulaSrinivasaRao 2011-12 9,88,360 (iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘Act’) in respect of the following allowances : 3 I.T.A. No.13

THANGIRALA IMMANUEL,PALAKOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALAKOL

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.13 & 14/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12) Thangirala Immanuel, Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.16/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avadhanula Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.25/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वषा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar Development Officer Ward-1 Lic Of India Palakol 1St Lane, Brodipeta Palakol (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Smt.Suman Malik, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019

240 (i) Thangirala Immanuel 2011-12 6,97,120 (ii) AvadhanulaSrinivasaRao 2011-12 9,88,360 (iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘Act’) in respect of the following allowances : 3 I.T.A. No.13