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.

depreciation loss allowed to be carried forward against the income assessed to tax This additional ground raised by the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

loss of Rs. 32,50,35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

loss of Rs. 32,50,35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

loss of Rs. 32,50,35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished

HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

loss of Rs. 32,50,35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

loss of Rs. 32,50,35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR\nPage. No 5\nI.T.A.Nos.446, 447 & 448/VIZ/2025\nMerisetti Dhana Tataji --\nsubmitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated\n04.04.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the\nspecified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment\nframed by him vide his order

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR\nsubmitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated\n04.04.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the\nspecified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment\nframed by him vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

MARISETTI DHANA TATAJI,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR\nPage. No 5\nsubmitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated\n04.04.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the\nspecified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment\nframed by him vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022 had been issued by the Ld. AO without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.07.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore, the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated

NANDIGAM VEERABRAHMAM,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 04.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated

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)

depreciation claimed in the Profit & Loss a/c. against the lease income received.” 6. The issue agitated by the assessee is treatment of rental income as “Income from House Property” instead of considering it as “Income from profits and gains of business”. Page No. 25 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College 7. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR

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)

depreciation claimed in the Profit & Loss a/c. against the lease income received.” 6. The issue agitated by the assessee is treatment of rental income as “Income from House Property” instead of considering it as “Income from profits and gains of business”. Page No. 25 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College 7. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR

CMR TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS COMPANY PRIVATE LTD,VIJYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Cmr Transport Contractors Company Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax D.No.54-18/3-4, Sivapuram Colony Circle-2(1) Near Iti Gate Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccc6075E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

loss account of the company only the depreciation nd the finance costs pertaining to the vehicles hired books of the company…….”. By the assessee specifically by filing evidences which was quoted as follow in his order at page. 7&8 as follows:”…… While in assessment proceeding the Ld. AO has not expressed any doubt about the maintenance expenses

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI BHUPATHI RAJU RAVI VARMA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.654/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bhupathi Raju Ravi Varma Income Tax D.No.50-1-23, Flat No.103 Circle-3(1) Ksr Complex Visakhapatnam Block A, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aggpb6021L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carried out by the assessee. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to accept the loss on account of sale of the asset by treating the same as business loss, when the asset sold is a capital asset. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.(Tp).A. No.44/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel Income Tax, City Private Limited Sez, Circle-5(1), 2Nd Floor, Direct Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Taxes Building, Mvp Double Visakhapatnam – 530 011. Road, Visakhapatnam, Pan: Aaaco 9452 H Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kirpalani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

depreciation and Rs. 3,477/- under income from other sources. The Ld. TPO has not disputed the TNMM Method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The Ld. TPO has also accepted the 15 comparable companies selected by the assessee. The Ld. TPO computed the Arithmetic Mean of the comparable companies based on the independent analysis 4 considering the single year

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 4(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 229/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

depreciation on certain items, TDS compliance for certain expenses and scope of disallowance under section 43B for interest payments. Assessing Officer passed another assessment order allowing the same loss as in the earlier assessment order. Once again Ld. CIT – 2, Visakhapatnam on 28.03.2014 holding the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue