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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, depreciation of Rs 6,24,965/- and expenditure of Rs.4,33,212/- u/s 37(1) of the Act. Page

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

24 of the Act, i.e., under the head “Income from house property”. 10. Further, the AO observed that though the assessee company had during the subject year disclosed in its “balance sheet” under the head “Current assets”, the investments it had made in unlisted and listed equities to an extent of RS. 15,42,44,890/-, but had not attributed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

24 of the Act, i.e., under the head\n"Income from house property".\n10. Further, the AO observed that though the assessee company had\nduring the subject year disclosed in its “balance sheet” under the head\n"Current assets", the investments it had made in unlisted and listed\nequities to an extent

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

24 of the Act, i.e., under the head “Income from house property”. 10. Further, the AO observed that though the assessee company had during the subject year disclosed in its “balance sheet” under the head “Current assets”, the investments it had made in unlisted and listed equities to an extent of RS. 15,42,44,890/-, but had not attributed

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

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been\nallowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any\nperson for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the\nassessee.\nExplanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

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). 13 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect

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

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

section 37 of the Act. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.467/VIZ/2025 Vinta Laboratories Private Limited 5. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO, since assessee has not responded to any of the notice / opportunities provided to the assessee

HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Depreciation 28,52,000 Miscellaneous 24,25,723 Total 8,41,04,723 8. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 (supra) vide paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as follows: “7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Depreciation 28,52,000 Miscellaneous 24,25,723 Total 8,41,04,723 8. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 (supra) vide paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as follows: “7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Depreciation 28,52,000 Miscellaneous 24,25,723 Total 8,41,04,723 8. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 (supra) vide paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as follows: “7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Depreciation 28,52,000 Miscellaneous 24,25,723 Total 8,41,04,723 8. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 (supra) vide paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as follows: “7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Depreciation 28,52,000 Miscellaneous 24,25,723 Total 8,41,04,723 8. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 (supra) vide paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as follows: “7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

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

UPPALAPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,UPPALAPADU, GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

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

NANDIGAM VEERABRAHMAM,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Us:

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

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