MAQBOOL HUSSAIN EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.

10(23C)(vi) of the Act. 12. Next addition is on account of disallowance of depreciation that was made for the reason that the cost of acquisition was claimed as application in the year of acquisition. It is the argument of the learned AR that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act have been inserted and was made

MAQBOOL HUSSAIN EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.

10(23C)(vi) of the Act. 12. Next addition is on account of disallowance of depreciation that was made for the reason that the cost of acquisition was claimed as application in the year of acquisition. It is the argument of the learned AR that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act have been inserted and was made

MAQBOOL HUSSAIN EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.

10(23C)(vi) of the Act. 12. Next addition is on account of disallowance of depreciation that was made for the reason that the cost of acquisition was claimed as application in the year of acquisition. It is the argument of the learned AR that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act have been inserted and was made

MAQBOOL HUSSAIN EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.

10(23C)(vi) of the Act. 12. Next addition is on account of disallowance of depreciation that was made for the reason that the cost of acquisition was claimed as application in the year of acquisition. It is the argument of the learned AR that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act have been inserted and was made

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

13\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\n\nassumptions concluded that the assessee ought to have paid Rs.17.50 Crores and\nRs.4.70 Crores to the shell companies and therefore proceeded to make addition\nin the hands of the assessee.\n\n18. Further, we also find merit in the argument

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

13\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\nassumptions concluded that the assessee ought to have paid Rs.17.50 Crores and\nRs.4.70 Crores to the shell companies and therefore proceeded to make addition\nin the hands of the assessee.\n18. Further, we also find merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

disallowed\n10% of total bogus purchases thereby confirmed the deletion of balance of\nRs.18,44,787/-. The Ld. CIT(A), thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n11. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: .\n"1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

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

section 40A(3) of the Act wherein the additions were made based on the impounded material shall be mutatis mutandis applies to this ground. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 57. Ground Nos. 9, 10 & 11 is with respect to the disallowances of expenditure by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 71,14,092/- spent by Director

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

section 48(i) of the Act and deleted the disallowance made by the A.O. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: “5. Findings & Decision: 5.1 I have gone through the Assessment Order, Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal filed by the appellant and the written submissions

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10,000/-, as the additional confirmations on few of the unsecured loans were presented before the Ld.CIT(A). whereas the Assessing officer was not given any opportunity to verify the same. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs 1,57,404/-, Disallowance towards late payment of employee contribution to PF, and ought to have

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10,000/-, as the additional confirmations on few of the unsecured loans were presented before the Ld.CIT(A). whereas the Assessing officer was not given any opportunity to verify the same. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs 1,57,404/-, Disallowance towards late payment of employee contribution to PF, and ought to have