ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act, which, as extracted from the letter dated 20.05.2025, made available by the A.O to the assessee company, reads as under (Page 53 of APB): “1. Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment: The assessee company filed its return of income for the A.Y 2007- 08 admitting loss of Rs. 1

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

1)/(1A) was passed in the case of Sri T.Janardhana Rao on 12.02.2013 for not making TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on the payments made by him to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed her income tax return for the A.Y.2010-11 on 17.05.2013 admitting sale consideration of Rs.39,69,000/-, towards her share

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

disallowance\n8%\nof\nthe total purchases of R$ 1,59,55,961/- as the assessee company could not\nsatisfactorily explain the claim of alleged purchases at the time of scrutiny\nproceedings, when the discrepancies were confronted by the AO.\n21. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the\nHon'bleGujarat High Court in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

disallowance\n8%\nof\nthe total purchases of R$ 1,59,55,961/- as the assessee company could not\nsatisfactorily explain the claim of alleged purchases at the time of scrutiny\nproceedings, when the discrepancies were confronted by the AO.\n21. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the\nHon'bleGujarat High Court in the case

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

disallowance\n8%\nof\nthe total purchases of R$ 1,59,55,961/- as the assessee company could not\nsatisfactorily explain the claim of alleged purchases at the time of scrutiny\nproceedings, when the discrepancies were confronted by the AO.\n21. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the\nHon'bleGujarat High Court in the case

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

disallowance\n8% of\nthe total purchases of R$ 1,59,55,961/- as the assessee company could not\nsatisfactorily explain the claim of alleged purchases at the time of scrutiny\nproceedings, when the discrepancies were confronted by the AO.\n21. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the\nHon'bleGujarat High Court in the case

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed as is provided in section 40(a)(ia) and the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature is retrospective in operation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice

THE SOCIETY FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.435/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) The Society For Collegiate Education V. Dcit (Exemptions) Exemption Circle D.No. 52-14-75 Income Tax Office New Resapuvanipalem C.R. Building “Annex” Visakhapatnam – 530013 M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaatt9499E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the TDS credit for Rs. 1,736/-. 3. Aggrieved by the rectification order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Simultaneously, the Assessee also filed one more rectification petition before CPC, against the rectification order passed on 24.02.2023. Since the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with delay of 193 days. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT LTD, GUNTUR

1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law.\n2.\nThe L.d. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the working of average price\nper egg at Rs 3.83, as done by the AO in the assessment order. The CIT(A)\nerred in directing the AO to recompute the average price

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

Bench: Us:

1, 2 and 29 are general in nature which do not call for separate adjudication. 5.3 Ground nos. 3 to 28 are appeal specific which revolve round the one and only issue involved in the case on hand. During the year of account, the assessee sold land of 10,164 sq. yards situated at Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh