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)

Sections 30 to 38, which takes in its fold the deduction such as depreciation and interest, shall be deemed to have

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)

Sections 30 to 38, which takes in its fold the deduction such as depreciation and interest, shall be deemed to 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)

Sections 30 to 38, which takes in its fold the deduction such as depreciation and interest, shall be deemed to have

THE DY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. R.R. CONSTRUCTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

depreciation, the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT, hence, requested to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO. Further, the Ld. A.R. submitted that as per the provisions of section 30 to 38

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 loss and allow the same to be carried forward for the subsequent years. This ground of CO of the assessee stands allowed. 36. Ground No.4 is related to the granting of short credit of tax deducted at source while determining the balance income tax payable or refundable to the assessee. It is the obligation of the Assessing Officer

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 loss and allow the same to be carried forward for the subsequent years. This ground of CO of the assessee stands allowed. 36. Ground No.4 is related to the granting of short credit of tax deducted at source while determining the balance income tax payable or refundable to the assessee. It is the obligation of the Assessing Officer

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 loss and allow the same to be carried forward for the subsequent years. This ground of CO of the assessee stands allowed. 36. Ground No.4 is related to the granting of short credit of tax deducted at source while determining the balance income tax payable or refundable to the assessee. It is the obligation of the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

38) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, assessee Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.450/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 17/VIZ/2024 Duvvuru Rekha Reddy submitted that assessee was allotted 6,62,000 shares of the Company Steel Exchange India Ltd through Preferential allotment at the rate of Rs.29/- per share through a Board resolution. The assessee paid a purchase consideration

KASAPU RAMESH BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this act has been computed." 13. The law on the provisions of section 147 is very clear. Section 147 authorizes the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess the income if he has reason to believe that such income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and has duly recorded the reasons

M/S MIRACLE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS (I) PVT., LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.43/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09) M/S. Miracle Software Systems (I) Vs. Dcit, Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcm 4988 R (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sashtri, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

depreciation on account of non utilization of capacity would be 8 Rs. 1,38,03,107/-. The Ld. AR also could not produce any evidences for non-utilization of capacity even before us. The Ld. AR also did not raise any technical objection in the order passed by the TPO. Section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

38) of the Act in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains on sale of shares. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 even on the ground that: a) The notice issued was not based on the facts stated in the return of income. b) The notice issued u/s 148A

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:

38,65,617/- determining the same at Rs. 35,09,250/-. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order 5 N. Veerabrahmam passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 31.01.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 39,39,700/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the assessee

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:

38) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the A.O received information from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit- 7(1) & 7(3), Mumbai, that search and survey proceedings conducted on 5 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati certain accommodation entry providers had revealed that the assessee, being one of the beneficiaries, had received an accommodation entry to the tune

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)

depreciation allowable at the rates applicable to the factory will be allowable thereon. It cannot be held to be ‘plant’ as contended by the assessee. In that view of the matter, question No. 2 referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The other three questions have already been answered

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)

depreciation allowable at the rates applicable to the factory will be allowable thereon. It cannot be held to be ‘plant’ as contended by the assessee. In that view of the matter, question No. 2 referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The other three questions have already been answered

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)

depreciation allowable at the rates applicable to the factory will be allowable thereon. It cannot be held to be ‘plant’ as contended by the assessee. In that view of the matter, question No. 2 referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The other three questions have already been answered

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)

depreciation allowable at the rates applicable to the factory will be allowable thereon. It cannot be held to be ‘plant’ as contended by the assessee. In that view of the matter, question No. 2 referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The other three questions have already been answered