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

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

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

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

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

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

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

18. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 49/VIZ/2012 for the Assessment Year

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

18. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 49/VIZ/2012 for the Assessment Year

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

depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed to be set off against other income in the earlier years. In view of the specific provisions of section 801A(5), as laid down by the special bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gold Minds Shares and Financed by the limited 113 ITD 209. The appellant will

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

depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed to be set off against other income in the earlier years. In view of the specific provisions of section 801A(5), as laid down by the special bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gold Minds Shares and Financed by the limited 113 ITD 209. The appellant will

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

depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed to be set off against other income in the earlier years. In view of the specific provisions of section 801A(5), as laid down by the special bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gold Minds Shares and Financed by the limited 113 ITD 209. The appellant will

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

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)

section 143(3) of the Act by making the following additions / disallowances: Sl Amount Nature of addition / disallowance No (Rs.) 1. Upfront premium added as income 75,14,24,443 2. Disallowance of Excess claim of depreciation 18

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)

section 143(3) of the Act by making the following additions / disallowances: Sl Amount Nature of addition / disallowance No (Rs.) 1. Upfront premium added as income 75,14,24,443 2. Disallowance of Excess claim of depreciation 18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SUNRAY GREEN SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sunray Green Income Tax Space Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 D.No.10-50-40 Visakhapatnam Excelsior Apartments Ramnagar Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2018 & 49/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) M/S Sunray Green Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Space Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.10-50-40 Central Circle-1 Excelsior Apartments, Ramnagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

18% on gross contract receipts before depreciation. The AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271AAB and 271F of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed the penalty proceedings levying penalty of Rs.60,00,000/- @30% on undisclosed income of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 11. Against which the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) cancelled the penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SUNRAY GREEN SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sunray Green Income Tax Space Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 D.No.10-50-40 Visakhapatnam Excelsior Apartments Ramnagar Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2018 & 49/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) M/S Sunray Green Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Space Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.10-50-40 Central Circle-1 Excelsior Apartments, Ramnagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

18% on gross contract receipts before depreciation. The AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271AAB and 271F of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed the penalty proceedings levying penalty of Rs.60,00,000/- @30% on undisclosed income of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 11. Against which the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) cancelled the penalty

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.” Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation U/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the machinery involved in wind power division. We therefore find no infirmity in the order

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 35 in 18 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam respect of cost of car purchased for the purpose of R&D activity by disclosing all the necessary particulars in the audit report. The facts that the car was purchased by the assessee and also used for the purpose of the business had not been

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 35 in 18 I.T.A. Nos.375/Viz/2017 and 457/Viz/2017 Smt. Siripurapu Chinatalli and Shri K.V.V.Prasad, Visakhapatnam respect of cost of car purchased for the purpose of R&D activity by disclosing all the necessary particulars in the audit report. The facts that the car was purchased by the assessee and also used for the purpose of the business had not been

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

18,90,000 Investment Depreciation reserve 11,10,000 Reserve for shares 1,00,001 Total 1,21,33,731 (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) 10.4 The appellant has produced the ledger extract containing the break up for the operating expenses amounting to Rs.98,65,418/-. This has been verified by the A.O. as seen from his remand