THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14,73,486/- which was included in the total depreciation claimed in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer called for explanation from the assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be disallowed and in response to which the assessee filed the explanation. The assessee in its reply stated that the assessee company had acquired the shares

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14,73,486/- which was included in the total depreciation claimed in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer called for explanation from the assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be disallowed and in response to which the assessee filed the explanation. The assessee in its reply stated that the assessee company had acquired the shares

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

14. Brief facts of the case are that, Ld. CIT(E) considered the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue while exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act, stating that Assessing Officer has not disallowed the claim of depreciation

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

14. Brief facts of the case are that, Ld. CIT(E) considered the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue while exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act, stating that Assessing Officer has not disallowed the claim of depreciation

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , VIJAYAWADA vs. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST, , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation is Rs.14,82,12,178/-, the assessee would be required to spend only C.O.No. 123/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Care and Share Charitable Trust) Rs.14,16,42,102/-, against this assessee incurred Rs.14,82,12,178/- even after deducting the expenditure disallowed by the Assessing Officer. According to the ld. CIT(A) the entire income of the assessee is exempt u/sec

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

depreciation of Rs. 35,65,818/- to the total income and to re-determine the total income in accordance with law and established procedure, but in the instant case no such direction(s) was given with regard to adding of any addition and/or determination of issues in particular mode/fashion, but in fact the prerogative was given

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

depreciation of Rs. 35,65,818/- to the total income and to re-determine the total income in accordance with law and established procedure, but in the instant case no such direction(s) was given with regard to adding of any addition and/or determination of issues in particular mode/fashion, but in fact the prerogative was given

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

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 14 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

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

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

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

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 14 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

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

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 14 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

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

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 14 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

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

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

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

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 14 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

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation of amalgamating co-operative bank i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank can be set off against the income of successor co-operative bank i.e. amalgamated co-operative bank (assessee) if the amalgamation is within the meaning of section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation of amalgamating co-operative bank i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank can be set off against the income of successor co-operative bank i.e. amalgamated co-operative bank (assessee) if the amalgamation is within the meaning of section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation of amalgamating co-operative bank i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank can be set off against the income of successor co-operative bank i.e. amalgamated co-operative bank (assessee) if the amalgamation is within the meaning of section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

14. We have heard both the sides and find that it is a provision made by the assessee on notional basis and it cannot be considered as an accrued liability. Mere provision made in the accounts would not be eligible for deduction. We find that ld.CIT(A) correctly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus, this ground of appeal

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

14. We have heard both the sides and find that it is a provision made by the assessee on notional basis and it cannot be considered as an accrued liability. Mere provision made in the accounts would not be eligible for deduction. We find that ld.CIT(A) correctly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus, this ground of appeal