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

73,779/- U/s. 32 of the Act without properly appreciating the fact that the assessee was not the owner of port and has only the right to earn income till the expiry of contract period. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)‟s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. 3. The Appellant craves leave

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

73,779/- U/s. 32 of the Act without properly appreciating the fact that the assessee was not the owner of port and has only the right to earn income till the expiry of contract period. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)‟s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. 3. The Appellant craves leave

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

73,779/- U/s. 32 of the Act without properly appreciating the fact that the assessee was not the owner of port and has only the right to earn income till the expiry of contract period. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)‟s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. 3. The Appellant craves leave

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

73,486/- which was included in the total depreciation claimed in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer called for explanation from the assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be disallowed and in response to which the assessee filed the explanation. The assessee in its reply stated that the assessee company had acquired the shares

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

73,486/- which was included in the total depreciation claimed in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer called for explanation from the assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be disallowed and in response to which the assessee filed the explanation. The assessee in its reply stated that the assessee company had acquired the shares

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

73,486/- which was included in the total depreciation claimed in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer called for explanation from the assessee as to why the depreciation on goodwill should not be disallowed and in response to which the assessee filed the explanation. The assessee in its reply stated that the assessee company had acquired the shares

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

73,622/- i.e. Rs.62,09,02,578/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee income at Rs. NIL while finalising the assessment. However, Assessing Officer considered that the assessee has mis-reported the claim of expenditure on account of depreciation and therefore initiated penalty proceedings under section

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

73,622/- i.e. Rs.62,09,02,578/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee income at Rs. NIL while finalising the assessment. However, Assessing Officer considered that the assessee has mis-reported the claim of expenditure on account of depreciation and therefore initiated penalty proceedings under section

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

73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is made to an unapproved gratuity fund, it has to be allowed under

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

73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is made to an unapproved gratuity fund, it has to be allowed under

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

73,710 Depreciation PBDIT (OR-OC) 66,12,34,425 PBDIT / OR (%) 60.44 PBDIT / OC (%) 152.75 5. The Ld. TPO examined the analysis made by the assessee under CUP method and TNMM and observed that as per the 6 OECD Guidelines which defines “Tested Party” should have the following attributes: 1. Available of reliable and accurate data for comparison

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

depreciation loss allowed to be carried forward against the income assessed to tax This additional ground raised by the appellant is not in agreement with the provisions of Section 68 r.w.s 1158BE of the Act. The plain reading of the Section 115BBE(2) denies any set off of any loss to be allowed if the addition is in the nature

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

73,000/-. The assessee submitted that it has suo-motto disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.51,04,13,074/- from the AY 2006-07 to AY 2012-13 and accordingly paid the taxes. The Ld. AO observed that during the FY 2005-06, the assessee has shown an amount

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

73,000/-. The assessee submitted that it has suo-motto disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.51,04,13,074/- from the AY 2006-07 to AY 2012-13 and accordingly paid the taxes. The Ld. AO observed that during the FY 2005-06, the assessee has shown an amount

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

73,000/-. The assessee submitted that it has suo-motto disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.51,04,13,074/- from the AY 2006-07 to AY 2012-13 and accordingly paid the taxes. The Ld. AO observed that during the FY 2005-06, the assessee has shown an amount

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

73,000/-. The assessee submitted that it has suo-motto disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.51,04,13,074/- from the AY 2006-07 to AY 2012-13 and accordingly paid the taxes. The Ld. AO observed that during the FY 2005-06, the assessee has shown an amount

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

73,000/-. The assessee submitted that it has suo-motto disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.51,04,13,074/- from the AY 2006-07 to AY 2012-13 and accordingly paid the taxes. The Ld. AO observed that during the FY 2005-06, the assessee has shown an amount

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)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public financial institutions”; “scheduled