THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO -OPERATIVE BANK LIMITD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. The Visakhapatnam Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. The Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 58/Viz/2017 (Ita No. 308/Viz/2017) (Asst. Year : 2013-14) M/S. The Visakhapatnam Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the Act dated 14.12.2013 and submitted that the very same issue has been considered by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT for earlier years and decided in favour of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and directed the A.O. to delete the addition by observing as under: 5.2 I have

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

154 of the Act dated 14.12.2013 and submitted that the very same issue has been considered by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT for earlier years and decided in favour of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and directed the A.O. to delete the addition by observing as under: 5.2. I have

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

154 of the Act dated 14.12.2013 and submitted that the very same issue has been considered by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT for earlier years and decided in favour of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and directed the A.O. to delete the addition by observing as under: 5.2. I have

THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. ABC ENGINEERING WORKS,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowed the depreciation originally in the assessment order. Subsequently, the AO sought to withdraw the depreciation u/s 154 of the Act and the reason assigned for withdrawing depreciation is wrong adoption of the ratio

THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. ABC ENGINEERING WORKS,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowed the depreciation originally in the assessment order. Subsequently, the AO sought to withdraw the depreciation u/s 154 of the Act and the reason assigned for withdrawing depreciation is wrong adoption of the ratio

THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. ABC ENGINEERING WORKERS,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowed the depreciation originally in the assessment order. Subsequently, the AO sought to withdraw the depreciation u/s 154 of the Act and the reason assigned for withdrawing depreciation is wrong adoption of the ratio

M/S ABC ENGINEERING WORKS,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DCIT,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowed the depreciation originally in the assessment order. Subsequently, the AO sought to withdraw the depreciation u/s 154 of the Act and the reason assigned for withdrawing depreciation is wrong adoption of the ratio

M/S. ABC ENGINEERING WORKS,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowed the depreciation originally in the assessment order. Subsequently, the AO sought to withdraw the depreciation u/s 154 of the Act and the reason assigned for withdrawing depreciation is wrong adoption of the ratio

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,45,401/- made by the Assessing Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in partly sustaining