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

gains of business or profession”.\nHon'ble Kerala High Court decision in case of CIT vs Oberon\nEdifices & Estates (P.) Ltd (263 Taxman 377) wherein Hon'ble Court\n20\nITA No.314 & 206/Viz/2025\nITA No. 205/Viz/2024\nNord Anglia Education Infrastructure\nPrivate Limited vs. DCIT I\nheld that in cases where income received is not from bare letting out\nproperty

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital accounts of the partners have predominantly arisen on account of the losses incurred by the assessee during the earlier years and not due to withdrawal of funds by the partners. Hence, the observation of the AO in this regard is found to be factually incorrect. 30. In view of the discussion made in paragraphs 25 to 29 above

GOWTHAM RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital accounts of the partners have predominantly arisen on account of the losses incurred by the assessee during the earlier years and not due to withdrawal of funds by the partners. Hence, the observation of the AO in this regard is found to be factually incorrect. 30. In view of the discussion made in paragraphs 25 to 29 above