THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

220/-. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O based on the aforesaid information that was shared with him by the JCIT(OSD), Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai, called upon the assessee company to put forth an explanation as to why the impugned loan of Rs. 1 crore received from M/s Aneri Fincap Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

220/-. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O based on the aforesaid information that was shared with him by the JCIT(OSD), Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai, called upon the assessee company to put forth an explanation as to why the impugned loan of Rs. 1 crore received from M/s Aneri Fincap Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

220/-. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O based on the aforesaid information that was shared with him by the JCIT(OSD), Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai, called upon the assessee company to put forth an explanation as to why the impugned loan of Rs. 1 crore received from M/s Aneri Fincap Vedumutha Electricals India Private Limited

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.156/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 50-1-51/1, A.S.R.Nagar Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(I) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan:

disallowance as per Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO based on the directions of the Ld.DRP, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds : 1. The Final Assessment order incorporating Transfer Pricing adjustment passed by the learned Assessing Officer 4 ITA No.156/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

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

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

6), 10(5)(b), 32A and section 8ORRA. Tribunal agreed with the argument of the assessee that idea of not mentioning the word electricity in section 80IA(4)(iv) was only for the purpose that the legislature wanted to give the word power a wider meaning. Once the Legislature has not used the word electricity in the section, the Courts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

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

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

6), 10(5)(b), 32A and section 8ORRA. Tribunal agreed with the argument of the assessee that idea of not mentioning the word electricity in section 80IA(4)(iv) was only for the purpose that the legislature wanted to give the word power a wider meaning. Once the Legislature has not used the word electricity in the section, the Courts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

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

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

6), 10(5)(b), 32A and section 8ORRA. Tribunal agreed with the argument of the assessee that idea of not mentioning the word electricity in section 80IA(4)(iv) was only for the purpose that the legislature wanted to give the word power a wider meaning. Once the Legislature has not used the word electricity in the section, the Courts

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)

220 workmen by invoking provisions of section 25FF was justified. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is said to be pending. As per the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, there were nearly 370 workmen and 70 apprentices in the assessee-company. On the intervention of the District Collector

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)

220 workmen by invoking provisions of section 25FF was justified. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is said to be pending. As per the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, there were nearly 370 workmen and 70 apprentices in the assessee-company. On the intervention of the District Collector

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)

220 workmen by invoking provisions of section 25FF was justified. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is said to be pending. As per the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, there were nearly 370 workmen and 70 apprentices in the assessee-company. On the intervention of the District Collector

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)

220 workmen by invoking provisions of section 25FF was justified. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is said to be pending. As per the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, there were nearly 370 workmen and 70 apprentices in the assessee-company. On the intervention of the District Collector

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

disallowance u/s. 14A for Rs. 13,20,907/- in his draft assessment order U/s. 144C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP-1, Bengaluru and challenged the upward adjustments. In the mean time the assessee also filed a rectification application on 04.03.2021 before the TPO. The TPO considering

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

6. The Ld. AO also made disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend was received during the year and no expenditure was incurred either

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

6. The Ld. AO also made disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend was received during the year and no expenditure was incurred either

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

6. The Ld. AO also made disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend was received during the year and no expenditure was incurred either

SINDHURA HOSPITAL,SRIKAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

220 2 Other Expenses 61,88,747 3 Sindhura Hospital Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 3 Finance Cost 36,64,051 4 Employees Benefit 58,44,295 5 Cost of Material Consumed 68,59,732 Total 3,87,65,045 4. On verification, it was observed by the A.O. that the “Employees Benefit expenses” of Rs.58,44,295/-, inter alia

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARIPALLI VIMALA DEVI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

220/- respectively against the Doc. No. 98/2004 and 3772/2004. The property was purchased on 9/1/2004 and 30/08/2004 respectively. Subsequently, during the year 2007 the property was mortgaged with State Bank of India against the term loan of Rs. 3 Crs granted to M/s. Amaravathi Inn Pvt Ltd., wherein the assessee and her late husband were Directors. Further, another term loan

M/S. vs. R INFOTECH ,,VISAKHAPATNAMVS.THE ITO ,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

220/- on 29.8.2008. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 29.2.2012 for verification of the assessee’s eligibility regarding the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10B of the Act. The assessee had claimed exemption of ` 53,07,039/- u/s 10B of the Act for the A.Y.2008-09. For the A.Y2010-11 the assessee has claimed