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

6. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding only 25% of Rs 5,04,336/-, without appreciating the factthat out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee company at Rs 11,61,792/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,336/- was disallowed holding that it was paid to referral Doctors/RMPs, which is against

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

6. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding only 25% of Rs 5,04,336/-, without appreciating the factthat out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee company at Rs 11,61,792/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,336/- was disallowed holding that it was paid to referral Doctors/RMPs, which is against

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

6. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding only 25% of Rs 5,04,336/-, without appreciating the factthat out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee company at Rs 11,61,792/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,336/- was disallowed holding that it was paid to referral Doctors/RMPs, which is against

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

6. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding only 25% of Rs 5,04,336/-, without appreciating the factthat out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee company at Rs 11,61,792/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,336/- was disallowed holding that it was paid to referral Doctors/RMPs, which is against

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

6. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding only 25% of Rs 5,04,336/-, without appreciating the factthat out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee company at Rs 11,61,792/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,336/- was disallowed holding that it was paid to referral Doctors/RMPs, which is against

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

6. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding only 25% of Rs 5,04,336/-, without appreciating the factthat out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee company at Rs 11,61,792/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,336/- was disallowed holding that it was paid to referral Doctors/RMPs, which is against

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

10,000/- and above to various depositors, total amount which computed during the year was Rs. 34,24,34,683/-. The assessee has not deducted TDS on such interest payments. The Assessing Officer called the C.O.No.130 & 131/VIZ/2018 (M/s. The Visakhapatnam Co-op. Bank Ltd.) assessee to explain why the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has not made applicable

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

10,000/- and above to various depositors, total amount which computed during the year was Rs. 34,24,34,683/-. The assessee has not deducted TDS on such interest payments. The Assessing Officer called the C.O.No.130 & 131/VIZ/2018 (M/s. The Visakhapatnam Co-op. Bank Ltd.) assessee to explain why the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has not made applicable

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

10,000/- and above to various depositors, total amount which computed during the year was Rs. 34,24,34,683/-. The assessee has not deducted TDS on such interest payments. The Assessing Officer called the C.O.No.130 & 131/VIZ/2018 (M/s. The Visakhapatnam Co-op. Bank Ltd.) assessee to explain why the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has not made applicable

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. CHATANYA GODAVARI,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

vii) of this sub-section and clause (v) of sub- section (2), the account referred to therein shall be only one account in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts under clause (viia) and such account shall relate to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches;" 34. It can be seen from the history of Sec.36

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. CHATANYA GODAVARI,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

vii) of this sub-section and clause (v) of sub- section (2), the account referred to therein shall be only one account in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts under clause (viia) and such account shall relate to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches;" 34. It can be seen from the history of Sec.36

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR vs. NSL TEXTILES LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act clearly mentions that fees paid in respect of services utilized in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purpose of making or earning income from any source outside India, would not come within the purview of income by way of fees for technical services. Addition

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR vs. NSL TEXTILES LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act clearly mentions that fees paid in respect of services utilized in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purpose of making or earning income from any source outside India, would not come within the purview of income by way of fees for technical services. Addition

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.156/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 50-1-51/1, A.S.R.Nagar Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(I) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan:

disallowance as per Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO based on the directions of the Ld.DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds : 1. The Final Assessment order incorporating Transfer Pricing adjustment passed by the learned Assessing Officer 4 ITA No.156/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam

SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 140/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited D.No. 49-12-33 Lalitha Temple Street Lalitha Nagar, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadas2078L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Income Tax Office Pratyakshakar Bhavan Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar : 06.02.2025 : 20.02.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Vide Din & Order No.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Assessee submitted similar information before Ld.CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

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

vii. Kirti Agrotech Limited Ground No.4: Rejecting of entrepreneurial companies: Notwithstanding an objective comparative analysis rejecting entrepreneurial companies engaged in palm tree plantation and production inter alia including: i. Godrej Agrovet Limited (Vegetable Oil Segment). ii. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited (Extractions segment) iii. Navabharat Agro Products Private Limited iv. Oil Palm India Limited Corporate Tax Matters Ground No.5: Disallowing Miscellaneous

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

disallowed 10% of the assessee's claim for deduction of purchase of metal of Rs. 2,41,97,970/- and worked out a consequential addition of Rs.24,19,797/-. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order passed under Section 143(3), dated 12.12.2019, framed the assessment in the case of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal

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

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or vary one or more grounds.” 38. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee pertain to disallowance of depreciation of Rs 14,30,76,151/- on Project Berth. 39. This issue is identical to that of the raised by the Revenue in its appeals