Search: disallowance

SAGARA VIKASA MUTUALLY AIDED COOP THRIFT SOCIETY LTD ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 235/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Vs. Income Tax Officer Thrift Society Ltd., Ward-2(1) Opp. Sun School Visakhapatnam Near Vuda Layout, Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacas9620H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

disallowance is outside the scope of adjustment that could be made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji 207 ITR 368 and contended that section

VIKAS EDUCATRIONAL SOCIETY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO, WARD - 3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 386/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.385/Viz/2014 & I.T.A.No.386/Viz/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Vikas Educational Society Vs. The Income Tax Officer D.No.8-1-97/1/8, Ninitaas High Ward-3(2) Pedawaltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatv 3260F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kjd Srinivas, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri KJD Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40a

section 194I of Income Tax Act and the assessee failed to remit the same to the Government account, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee, as to why the expenditure claimed should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the 6 I.T.A. No.385/Viz/2014 and 386/Viz/2014, A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s Vikas Educational Society, Visakhapatnam Act for non deduction

VIKAS EDUCATRIONAL SOCIETY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO, WARD - 3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 385/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.385/Viz/2014 & I.T.A.No.386/Viz/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Vikas Educational Society Vs. The Income Tax Officer D.No.8-1-97/1/8, Ninitaas High Ward-3(2) Pedawaltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatv 3260F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kjd Srinivas, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri KJD Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40a

section 194I of Income Tax Act and the assessee failed to remit the same to the Government account, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee, as to why the expenditure claimed should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the 6 I.T.A. No.385/Viz/2014 and 386/Viz/2014, A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s Vikas Educational Society, Visakhapatnam Act for non deduction

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above said decisions, we find no reason to differ with

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ATREYAPURAM SWARNA LAKSHMI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 557/VIZ/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.Nos.557&558/Vizag/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit, Central Circle Smt. Atreyapurapu Vijayawada Swarnalakshmi Visakhapatnam [Pan No.Adbpa3951Tg] (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यार्थी / Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I. Kamasastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2018 घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Duvvur R.L. Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AravindakshanFor Respondent: Shri I. Kamasastry, AR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

disallowed in consequence to the order under section 263 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by relying on the order of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam passed in ITA No. 207

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ATREYAPURAM SWARNA LAKSHMI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 558/VIZ/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.Nos.557&558/Vizag/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit, Central Circle Smt. Atreyapurapu Vijayawada Swarnalakshmi Visakhapatnam [Pan No.Adbpa3951Tg] (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यार्थी / Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I. Kamasastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2018 घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Duvvur R.L. Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AravindakshanFor Respondent: Shri I. Kamasastry, AR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

disallowed in consequence to the order under section 263 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by relying on the order of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam passed in ITA No. 207

VADDADI MADHUSUDANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 423/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.423/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 9(1)

207/- after making certain additions / disallowances with regard to deduction in respect of half pay leave encashment and FEEPR allowance, addition of RS.4,21,198/- towards gratuity, addition of Rs.75,00,000/- and 21,33,000/- under section

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2402/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2401/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2400/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 322/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

ITA 321/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

ITA 323/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

ITA 324/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

CHAGANTI SATYANARAYANA,,NARSAPUR vs. THE ITO,, PALAKOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blechaganti Satyanarayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Mission High School Road, Palakol. Royapeta, Narsapur, West Godavari District. Pan No. Adjpc 5570 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.R. Bangari – Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Chaganti Satyanarayana) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by assessing the total income at Rs. 7,69,207 after making additions on account of capital interest of Rs. 2,29,542/- and partners remuneration of Rs.1,80,000/- and also disallowed

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 13,68,08,086/-. 8. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred to Article No. 6.1(b) of the License

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 13,68,08,086/-. 8. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred to Article No. 6.1(b) of the License

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of depreciation on the Project Berth amounting to Rs. 13,68,08,086/-. 8. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred to Article No. 6.1(b) of the License