ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA PRADESH URBAN FINANCIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.318, 327 & 328/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. Andhra Pradesh Urban Financial & Infrastructure Development Central Revenue Buildings Corporation M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 54-15-5, Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony Opp. Venue Convention Centre-520008 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifa9311J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

TDS return payment of Rs.63,99,271/- for the F.Y 2014-15. Since assessee has not filed return of income, Ld. AO, Ward 6(1) Hyderabad issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) was issued on 08.09.2021. Thereafter on 11.11.2021 the case was transferred to ReAC from Ward

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

Bench: Us:

TDS) were deposited, and only the balance amount of Rs. 28,41,320/- was received in his bank account. 4. The A.O observed, that the assessee while computing the “capital gain” on the sale of the subject properties during the year under consideration, had reduced the abovementioned payments aggregating to Rs. 9 crores (supra) as an expenditure that was claimed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

TDS if submission of appellant is\nfound correct. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed.\n6.8. Ground of Appeal No. 9– interest u/s 234B, is consequential in\nnature and not adjudicated.\n6.9. Ground of Appeal No. 10– claim of education cess u/s 37(1) of\nthe Act of Rs 17.13 lacs.\nThe issue is covered by decision

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

46A of the IT Rules, 1963. The Ld. DR contended that these details are not provided before the Ld.AO / Ld. TPO. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) shifted the Tested Party to AE but has retained the same comparables selected by the Ld. TPO, wherein the assessee was considered as Tested Party. In response

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

46A(3) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Ground 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating that the absence of joint venture between appellant and lessee cannot be sufficient ground to hold that the receipts are not in nature of business receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in adjudicating that the absence of sharing agreement cannot be sufficient ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

46A(3) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Ground 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating that the absence of joint venture between appellant and lessee cannot be sufficient ground to hold that the receipts are not in nature of business receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in adjudicating that the absence of sharing agreement cannot be sufficient ground

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