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

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were Page

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

13. With respect to Ground No. 6 wherein the Ld. AO estimated the disallowance @25% of the expenditure claimed under patient refund account, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO erred in observing that certain amounts were paid to various Doctors throughout the year as referral payments, it claimed under patient refund account. He further vehemently submitted that these were 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.

section 14A. However relying on various decision of Hon’ble courts relied by appellant in its submission the disallowance is restricted to Rs 20,585/-. The balance disallowance is deleted. 6.5. Ground of Appeal No. 6– disallowance u/s 43B Appellant submitted that provision of gratuity and leave encashment has been disallowed in the computation of income. However, Rs 20 lacs

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.

section 14A. However relying on various decision of Hon’ble courts relied by appellant in its submission the disallowance is restricted to Rs 20,585/-. The balance disallowance is deleted. 6.5. Ground of Appeal No. 6– disallowance u/s 43B Appellant submitted that provision of gratuity and leave encashment has been disallowed in the computation of income. However, Rs 20 lacs

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

13,24,110/- after making adjustment to the returned income.\nThereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of\ndeduction claimed under section 80P of the Act. Accordingly, statutory notices\nunder section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee, calling for information. In response filed its submissions. On perusal

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of claim made u/s. 80IB of the Act amounting to\nRs.38,75,92,325/-.\n6.\nOn this issue Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"]\nsubmitted that the provisions of section 80IB of the Act states that \"profits\nderived from the business of an industrial undertaking\" cannot be applied on\nnarrow meaning because of the fact that DEPB benefits are derived