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

16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate the interest on share capital only upon determination of the surplus arising from the business i.e. net profit

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

16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate the interest on share capital only upon determination of the surplus arising from the business i.e. net profit

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

16 of the A.P. Mutually Aided (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, it is an allowable expenditure. The A.O. has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that the assessee has to allocate the interest on share capital only upon determination of the surplus arising from the business i.e. net profit

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

16. Ground No.2 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 17,53,11,007/-. 17. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred

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

16. Ground No.2 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 17,53,11,007/-. 17. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred

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

16. Ground No.2 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 17,53,11,007/-. 17. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred

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

16. Ground No.2 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 17,53,11,007/-. 17. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred

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

16. Ground No.2 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 17,53,11,007/-. 17. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred

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 R.C.Puram & Ongole Co-op. Banks either in amortized form over a period of 05 years or otherwise. The Assessing Officer further noted that as the losses of both C.O.No.130 & 131/VIZ/2018 (M/s. The Visakhapatnam Co-op. Bank Ltd.) acquired banks pertain to the period, during which the total income of both the banks were exempt under section

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 R.C.Puram & Ongole Co-op. Banks either in amortized form over a period of 05 years or otherwise. The Assessing Officer further noted that as the losses of both C.O.No.130 & 131/VIZ/2018 (M/s. The Visakhapatnam Co-op. Bank Ltd.) acquired banks pertain to the period, during which the total income of both the banks were exempt under section

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 R.C.Puram & Ongole Co-op. Banks either in amortized form over a period of 05 years or otherwise. The Assessing Officer further noted that as the losses of both C.O.No.130 & 131/VIZ/2018 (M/s. The Visakhapatnam Co-op. Bank Ltd.) acquired banks pertain to the period, during which the total income of both the banks were exempt under section

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

16. The only issue emanate from the above grounds is with respect to the validity of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) under section 263 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has already disallowed a sum of Rs.7,95,54,942/- on account of depreciation

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

16. The only issue emanate from the above grounds is with respect to the validity of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) under section 263 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has already disallowed a sum of Rs.7,95,54,942/- on account of depreciation

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)

16. On being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the C.O.No. 58/VIZ/2017 (The Visakhapatnam Co-op Bank Ltd.) coordinate bench of the tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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)

16. On being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the C.O.No. 58/VIZ/2017 (The Visakhapatnam Co-op Bank Ltd.) coordinate bench of the tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years

ASHOK RUDRARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

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

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

16. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that during the course of scrutiny proceedings, on verification, it is noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs. 4,58,983/- in the profit and loss account for the year ended 31/03/2012 as a staff gratuity. In this regard, it is requested the assessee to show- cause why the above

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

16. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that during the course of scrutiny proceedings, on verification, it is noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs. 4,58,983/- in the profit and loss account for the year ended 31/03/2012 as a staff gratuity. In this regard, it is requested the assessee to show- cause why the above

THE DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SEVEN HILLS HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Seven Hills Healthcare Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., D.No. 11-4-4/A, Rockdale Layout, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaics 2229 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section (M/s. Seven Hills Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.) 143(3) by assessing total loss of Rs. 137,53,16,240 on the ground that depreciation