ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

194C of the Act @ 2%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly considered the agreement and concluded that it is in the nature of engineering services which attracts the provisions of section 194J of the Act and the tax needs to be deducted @ 10%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

7 regarding the disallowances of expenditure\nof handling charges amounting to Rs. 3,39,675/-. On this issue, Ld.AR\nsubmitted that the assessee has paid the custom duty amounting to\nRs.13,49,610/- as submitted in Paper Book at Page No. 137 of the paper book.\nFurther, assessee has incurred handling charges of Rs. 81,92,784/- wherein the\nledger

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. K.VENKATA RAJU, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.501/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Circle-2(1) D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Rajahmundry Kadiam Mandal Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.153/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.501/Viz/2019) (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Tax Kadiam Mandal Circle-2(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Scondonation Of Delay :

7. For these any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing before the Hon’ble ITAT, the estimation of net income clear of depreciation made by the AO be upheld. The crux of the issue is allowability of depreciation from the estimation of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.16 Crs. According to the Assessing Officer, it is a prior period expenditure which cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, was that the liabilities created were based on estimated

HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.16 Crs. According to the Assessing Officer, it is a prior period expenditure which cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, was that the liabilities created were based on estimated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.16 Crs. According to the Assessing Officer, it is a prior period expenditure which cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, was that the liabilities created were based on estimated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.16 Crs. According to the Assessing Officer, it is a prior period expenditure which cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, was that the liabilities created were based on estimated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

7. Vide ground no.3, the assessee contends that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.16 Crs. According to the Assessing Officer, it is a prior period expenditure which cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, was that the liabilities created were based on estimated

SUBBA RAO JALADI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

194C) Valued at Rs. 5,03,950/- 3. Assessing Officer observed that as per the information available in this office, the assessee has made huge cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 9,52,90,900/- during the year under consideration. As the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, the source for cash

KOYYA GANGA VENKATA SATYA BHASKAR RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.145/Viz/2023 & 146/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhaskar Rao Ward-1 A.V.Nagaram Tuni East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bespk1580A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance, considering the transport charges of Rs.4,96,177/- as business income of the assessee. Apart from this, the assessee as per section 44AE has admitted income of Rs.90,000/- against the receipt of Rs.4,96,177/-. Moreover, the assessee had also deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Therefore, pleaded that considering the same, the Hon’ble Tribunal

KOYYA GANGA VENKATA SATYA BHASKAR RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.145/Viz/2023 & 146/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhaskar Rao Ward-1 A.V.Nagaram Tuni East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bespk1580A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance, considering the transport charges of Rs.4,96,177/- as business income of the assessee. Apart from this, the assessee as per section 44AE has admitted income of Rs.90,000/- against the receipt of Rs.4,96,177/-. Moreover, the assessee had also deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Therefore, pleaded that considering the same, the Hon’ble Tribunal