VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Supra) is not applicable. The learned Pr. CIT relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Page

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Supra) is not applicable. The learned Pr. CIT relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Page

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Supra) is not applicable. The learned Pr. CIT relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Page

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

x) of the impugned order and submitted that in the case in hand, the JDA as well as the GPA are duly registered and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Supra) is not applicable. The learned Pr. CIT relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Page

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

24,88,980/- for the AY 2017-18 on 29/10/2017. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) dated 14/8/2018 was issued to the assessee through ITBA. Subsequent to change in the incumbent a fresh notice u/s. 129 was issued to the assessee vide letter dated 11/11/2019 and accordingly notice

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

x 1,50,000] which is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called as ‘Act’). The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed that the assessee himself had received the entire enhanced equity of the company under the rights issue and the other seven share holders did not receive any shares from the enhanced share

M/S. MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital. As rightly observed by the Ld.DRP, had the assessee did not divert the funds, the tax payer would have saved the interest to the extent of diversion of funds. Therefore, the arguments of the Ld.AR not to charge the interest on interest free funds given or advance to the AE is not acceptable and we hold that

MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital. As rightly observed by the Ld.DRP, had the assessee did not divert the funds, the tax payer would have saved the interest to the extent of diversion of funds. Therefore, the arguments of the Ld.AR not to charge the interest on interest free funds given or advance to the AE is not acceptable and we hold that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

x Rs. 55) after the bonus shares issue. This in other words would mean that there is a prorata decrease in the value of equity shares when there is an issue of bonus shares. Thus when there is an issue of bonus shares there is a detriment suffered by the recipient shareholder, through the depression in the value

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

capital gains under section 71 of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disputed for disallowance. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the funds and made the investments in the business. The Assessing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,36,997/- out of disallowance of Rs. 17,71,587/- made by the assessing officer towards Bonus & Ex gratia payable. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.20,76,621 out of disallowance

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,36,997/- out of disallowance of Rs. 17,71,587/- made by the assessing officer towards Bonus & Ex gratia payable. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.20,76,621 out of disallowance

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,36,997/- out of disallowance of Rs. 17,71,587/- made by the assessing officer towards Bonus & Ex gratia payable. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.20,76,621 out of disallowance

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,36,997/- out of disallowance of Rs. 17,71,587/- made by the assessing officer towards Bonus & Ex gratia payable. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.20,76,621 out of disallowance

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

24,316/-. 6 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited 7. Subsequently, the A.O. initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2014 was issued by the A.O. In compliance, the assessee company, vide its reply dated 11.02.2015, submitted that its original return of income for the subject year that was filed

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

gain of Rs. 11,24,33,853/- which has a direct nexus with the period of realization of the receivables from the AE should be netted off against the notional interest charged on delayed receipt of trade receivables. 2.13. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the DRP/TPO/AO erred in considering uniform credit period of 60 days without any basis