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

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

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

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for\nsuch assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the relevant assessment year).\nExplanation. For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation\nunder this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in\nrespect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for\nsuch assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the relevant assessment year).\nExplanation. For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation\nunder this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in\nrespect 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

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)

section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.06.2019 was issued calling for certain information from the assessee. As there was no compliance from the assessee, Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice dated 24.09.2019 requesting the assessee to show cause why the rent received cannot be charged to tax as “Income from House Property”. The assessee responded belatedly

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)

section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.06.2019 was issued calling for certain information from the assessee. As there was no compliance from the assessee, Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice dated 24.09.2019 requesting the assessee to show cause why the rent received cannot be charged to tax as “Income from House Property”. The assessee responded belatedly

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VIJAYAWADA vs. MITHRA KYOKUTO SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.473/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mithra Kyokuto Special Purpose Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Vehicles Company Pvt Ltd., Circle – 3(1) P.B. No. 443, Gudavalli Vari Street Central Revenues Building Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520002 M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 [Pan: Aagcm8134Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In view of change in the incumbent, fresh opportunity was accorded to the assessee on 07.10.2014 vide notice dated 08.09.2014. In response to the notices, assessee’s representative appeared and filed the information called for, from time to time. It was observed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee’s AR produced the details as called for from time to time. After considering the submissions and facts of the case, the Ld.AO observed that the submissions of the assessee are not tenable as the assessee is claiming TDS credit

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee’s AR produced the details as called for from time to time. After considering the submissions and facts of the case, the Ld.AO observed that the submissions of the assessee are not tenable as the assessee is claiming TDS credit