THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, GUNTUR vs. LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blethe Acit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Guntur. D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 47/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 10/Viz/2019) (Asst. Year : 2006-07) M/S. Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(1), D.No. 5-87-22, Sri Balaji Guntur. House, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan No. Aabfl 6560 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 03/05/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Raothis Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur, Dated 29/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 Ita No.10 /Viz/2019 & C.O.No. 47/Viz/2019 (M/S. Lakshmi Constrcutions)

depreciation. An amount of Rs. 5,09,752/- received by the assessee firm as 3 ITA No.10 /VIZ/2019 & C.O.No. 47/VIZ/2019 (M/s. Lakshmi Constrcutions) discussed above was not considered as income for assessing the income at Rs. 12,34,384/-.” Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has added an amount of Rs. 5,09,752/- and assessment was completed under section

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details of other

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details of other

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details of other

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details of other

MALIPEDDI GIRIDHAR,AMALAPURAM vs. THE ASSTISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Malipeddi Giridhar V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-1 Income Tax Office D.No.7-1-20, Mgr Mall Deepthi Towers Tk Street, High School Road Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 East Godavari District – 533201 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amhpm0210B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee did not comply with the notices except filing ITR and Tax Audit Report. Thereafter, Assessing Officer considering the non-compliance by the assessee completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making following additions under section 68 of the Act: - a) Unsecured loans

VINTA LABORATORIES PVT LTD,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.467/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Vs. Dcit – Circle – 3(1) Vinta Laboratories Private Limited Plot No. 23-D, Apsez- De-Notified Area 1St Floor, Infinity Towers Apiic Rambilli Mandal D.No. 50-92-34/1/1 Visakhapatnam – 531011 Sankarmatham Road Andhra Pradesh Resapuvanipalem, Shanthipuram Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aarcs7889P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Agrawal, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

142(1) and multiple show-cause notices under section 144 of the Act. In response to the said notice assessee neither complied with the notice nor submitted the information called for. Considering the non-compliances by the assessee, Ld. AO framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.1,23,31,092/- being

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

142(1) of the Act was issued on 09.09.2019 & 19.09.2019 calling for certain information. In response to the above notices, assessee furnished its submissions/information Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.100 & 103/VIZ/2025 Visakhapatnam Port Authority through e-proceedings module from time to time as called for. After considering the submissions of the assessee and after examining the books of accounts and other

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

142(1) of the Act was issued on 09.09.2019 & 19.09.2019 calling for certain information. In response to the above notices, assessee furnished its submissions/information Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.100 & 103/VIZ/2025 Visakhapatnam Port Authority through e-proceedings module from time to time as called for. After considering the submissions of the assessee and after examining the books of accounts and other

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

142 13,98,37,651 4. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued

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

142 13,98,37,651 4. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued

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

142 13,98,37,651 4. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued

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

142 13,98,37,651 4. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued

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

142 13,98,37,651 4. The Ld. AO also disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued

THE DCIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. KWALITY FEEDS LTD.,, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Kwality Feeds Ltd., Vijayawada. No.3/57, Ramanapudi, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. Pan No. Aaack 9357 P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.17/Viz/2015 ( Arising Out Of Ita No. 26/Viz/2015) (Asst. Year : 2011-12) M/S. Kwality Feeds Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), No.3/57, Ramanapudi, Vijayawada. Gudivada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. Pan No. Aaack 9357 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) and called explanation and accordingly assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.3,84,60,222/- under the head ‘power and fuel’ in the profit & loss account. However, in the Director’s Report (Form-A), it was clearly

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble**

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

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

VIVEK INDUSTRIES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

142(1) of the Act, which was replied by the assessee. On a perusal of the submissions filed by the assessee firm, it was observed by the AO that the assessee firm was constituted vide a partnership deed executed on 14/10/2003 had claimed to have carried on its business activity only up to 06/02/2017. Also, it was observed