THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.376/Viz/2019 & 377/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddhartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

depreciation. Hence, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the consequential order passed by the AO. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised a ground that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) and section 11,12&13

THE ANDHARA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.376/Viz/2019 & 377/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddhartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

depreciation. Hence, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the consequential order passed by the AO. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised a ground that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) and section 11,12&13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, , VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.376/Viz/2019 & 377/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddhartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

depreciation. Hence, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the consequential order passed by the AO. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised a ground that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) and section 11,12&13

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been\nallowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any\nperson for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the\nassessee.\nExplanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

M/S. SREE MANIPRAKASH CHARITABLE WELFARE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.669/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) M/S Sree Maniprakash Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemptions) D.No.19-53/1 Visakhapatnam Near Railway Flyover Bridge Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaots8801M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) [Cit(E)], Hyderabad In F.No.Cit(E), Hyd/85(03)/80G/2018-19 Dated 30.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2

section 13(1) of the Act, daughters of the founder of the society had purchased site admeasuring 1355 sq.yards. Though Ld.CIT(E) expressed suspicion with regard to the 11 I.T.A. No.669/Viz/2019, A.Y.2019-20 M/s Sree Maniprakash Charitable Welfare Society., Visakhapatnam source, he did not bring any evidence to show that the society had funded the daughters for acquiring the land, thus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

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.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

depreciation U/s. 32 of the Act is not available to the tax payer. The Ld. AR stated that the facts of the case ie., North Karnataka Expressway Ltd (supra) are distinguishable as it is construction of roads on the lands belonging to the Government and only the collection of toll fees was permitted to the assessee as per Government notified

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

depreciation U/s. 32 of the Act is not available to the tax payer. The Ld. AR stated that the facts of the case ie., North Karnataka Expressway Ltd (supra) are distinguishable as it is construction of roads on the lands belonging to the Government and only the collection of toll fees was permitted to the assessee as per Government notified

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

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.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

depreciation U/s. 32 of the Act is not available to the tax payer. The Ld. AR stated that the facts of the case ie., North Karnataka Expressway Ltd (supra) are distinguishable as it is construction of roads on the lands belonging to the Government and only the collection of toll fees was permitted to the assessee as per Government notified

MOTHER THERESSA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,AMALAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation. However, the Assessing Officer has resorted to compute notional tax on the disallowance on which no tax is payable by the assessee. Further as argued by the Ld.AR, the assessee has not under-reported his income as per section 270A sub-section (2) clause (a) to clause (g). Further sub-section (7) of section 270A refers to penalty leviable

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. MOTHER THERESSA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHAITANYANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation. However, the Assessing Officer has resorted to compute notional tax on the disallowance on which no tax is payable by the assessee. Further as argued by the Ld.AR, the assessee has not under-reported his income as per section 270A sub-section (2) clause (a) to clause (g). Further sub-section (7) of section 270A refers to penalty leviable

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

KASAPU RAMESH BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this act has been computed." 13. The law on the provisions of section

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is set aside for redoing the assessment covering the above issues mentioned in the show cause letters mentioned above, as it is found that the above mentioned order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the above issues. The AO may pass the order after giving the Assessee

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is set aside for redoing the assessment covering the above issues mentioned in the show cause letters mentioned above, as it is found that the above mentioned order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the above issues. The AO may pass the order after giving the Assessee

M/S. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(VUDA),,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT, (EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

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

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

depreciation of Rs. 85,20,358/- and contribution to other agencies Rs. 28,84,300/- and held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, since the assessee’s registration granted u/sec. 12A was cancelled and the assessee was no more entitled for exemption u/sec. 11 of the Act. 13