DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Section 14A is not applicable in assessee’s case. As per the observation of the Ld.CIT, the assessee made the investments to the tune of Rs.19,90,625/- in shares and bonds from the borrowed funds and the interest expenditure relating to the earning of dividend income is required to be disallowed u/s 14A. Though CIT opined that the expenditure

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

disallowing the capital receipts amounting to Rs.7,09,44,112/- stating that there is a mistake apparent from the record while passing the giving effect order to the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.06.2024. Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.358/VIZ/2024 Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

161/- and believed that the same being inadmissible, is chargeable to tax. Accordingly, he re-opened the assessment under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice issued by 3 ITA Nos.147-149/VIZ/2018 C.O.Nos. 29-31/VIZ/2018 (M/s. SAR Chandra Environ Solutions P. Ltd.) the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that the original return filed by the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

161/- and believed that the same being inadmissible, is chargeable to tax. Accordingly, he re-opened the assessment under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice issued by 3 ITA Nos.147-149/VIZ/2018 C.O.Nos. 29-31/VIZ/2018 (M/s. SAR Chandra Environ Solutions P. Ltd.) the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that the original return filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

161/- and believed that the same being inadmissible, is chargeable to tax. Accordingly, he re-opened the assessment under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice issued by 3 ITA Nos.147-149/VIZ/2018 C.O.Nos. 29-31/VIZ/2018 (M/s. SAR Chandra Environ Solutions P. Ltd.) the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that the original return filed by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD,, RAJAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

section 37(1) of the Act, and that in every case it is a question of fact whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade or business. The authorised representative referred to the various tests laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills

SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,,RAJAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

section 37(1) of the Act, and that in every case it is a question of fact whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade or business. The authorised representative referred to the various tests laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills

SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD.,,RAJAM vs. THE ITO,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

section 37(1) of the Act, and that in every case it is a question of fact whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade or business. The authorised representative referred to the various tests laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills

THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE MILLS PVT LTD,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

section 37(1) of the Act, and that in every case it is a question of fact whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade or business. The authorised representative referred to the various tests laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 Crs treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and also disallowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 Crs treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and also disallowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 Crs treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and also disallowed

GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

disallowances and dismissed the 4 G MEDAPADU PACS vs. ITO appeal. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: 5.0 Findings and Decision: - 5.1 Ground 1: 1. The assessing officer has erred in treating the paddy procurement commission received by the assessee-society, as the income from

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

161 ITR 524 and the decision of CIT vs Jai Prakash Om Prakash Co.Ltd(1961) 41 ITR718(Punj). The assessee contended that the amount received from M/s Fortuna Infrastructure India Private Limited has to be treated as advance in the impugned assessment year and cannot be treated as income pending settlement of dispute. According to the assessee, the sum received

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

161 ITR 524 and the decision of CIT vs Jai Prakash Om Prakash Co.Ltd(1961) 41 ITR718(Punj). The assessee contended that the amount received from M/s Fortuna Infrastructure India Private Limited has to be treated as advance in the impugned assessment year and cannot be treated as income pending settlement of dispute. According to the assessee, the sum received

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party and was valid in law. The judgment under appeal is set aside to this extent.” 11.1. In the instant case there is no dispute that the Audit party has raised the objection with regard to the excess claim

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party and was valid in law. The judgment under appeal is set aside to this extent.” 11.1. In the instant case there is no dispute that the Audit party has raised the objection with regard to the excess claim

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party and was valid in law. The judgment under appeal is set aside to this extent.” 11.1. In the instant case there is no dispute that the Audit party has raised the objection with regard to the excess claim