DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

disallowance under Section 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs. 15,42,448/-. 11. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 20/09/2021, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 50,14,81,765/-. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who after

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

disallowance under Section 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs. 15,42,448/-. 11. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 20/09/2021, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 50,14,81,765/-. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who after

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

disallowance under Section 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs.\n15,42,448/-.\n11. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3)\nr.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 20/09/2021, determined the income of the\nassessee company at Rs. 50,14,81,765/-.\n12. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal\nbefore the CIT(A), who after

THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LTD.,,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU

250 of the IT Act is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the\ncase.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the disallowance of claim\nof deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs. 28,81,720/- for the alleged reason that\nassessee society during the impugned assessment has given loans and taken\ndeposits

LAKSHMI TANUJA SUGGUNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

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

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's plea & statement of\nfactswherein, the assessee submitted that there was no sale\ntransactioneffected by the assessee, as erroneously understood by the\nAO,causing for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and completion of\ntheassessment thereto.\n5.\nFor these and such

NRI ACADEMY OF SICENCES,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.213/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Vs. Nri Academy Of Sciences Income Tax Officer – Exemption 60-3-1/44 Yk Buildings Vijayawada Bus Route No. 5 Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada, Currency Nagar S.O. Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna – 520008, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatn4207C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 5. The only issue emanating from the above grounds is with respect to disallowances made under section 40A(3) of the Act by the CPC while processing the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. 6

UNITED CHURCH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 143(1) of the Act by\nCentralized Processing Centre (in short “CPC"), thereby dismissed the appeal\nof the assessee.\n6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in\nappeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: -\n“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the processing\nof the return

THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LIMITED,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU

250 of the IT Act is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the\ncase.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the disallowance of claim\nof deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs. 28,81,720/- for the alleged reason that\nassessee society during the impugned assessment has given loans and taken\ndeposits

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. 3. On being aggreivedby the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), Rajamahendravaram. Ld. CIT(A), Rajamahendravaram vide his order dated 13.08.2019 affirmed that Ld. AO has not passed a speaking order for disposing the objections of the assessee for reopening of the case

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowance under section 14A shall be deleted. Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chettinad LogisticsP. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 31. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Revenue Authorities. 32. We have heard both the sides and perused the materialsavailable

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

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.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowance under section 14A shall be deleted. Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chettinad LogisticsP. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 31. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Revenue Authorities. 32. We have heard both the sides and perused the materialsavailable

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

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.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowance under section 14A shall be deleted. Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chettinad LogisticsP. Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 31. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Revenue Authorities. 32. We have heard both the sides and perused the materialsavailable

SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non- compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B in Part A Ol-Other Information schedule in the return of income filed on 21.10.2020. The payee Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., being the Holding Company of the assessee has reported the interest income in the return

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 45. Ground No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,82,46,499/- U/s. 14A of the Act. This issue is identical to that of the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No.396/Viz/2014 (Ground No.2) for the AY 2010-11. Since

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 45. Ground No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,82,46,499/- U/s. 14A of the Act. This issue is identical to that of the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No.396/Viz/2014 (Ground No.2) for the AY 2010-11. Since

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 45. Ground No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,82,46,499/- U/s. 14A of the Act. This issue is identical to that of the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No.396/Viz/2014 (Ground No.2) for the AY 2010-11. Since

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 45. Ground No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,82,46,499/- U/s. 14A of the Act. This issue is identical to that of the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No.396/Viz/2014 (Ground No.2) for the AY 2010-11. Since

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 45. Ground No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,82,46,499/- U/s. 14A of the Act. This issue is identical to that of the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No.396/Viz/2014 (Ground No.2) for the AY 2010-11. Since

THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 45. Ground No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,82,46,499/- U/s. 14A of the Act. This issue is identical to that of the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No.396/Viz/2014 (Ground No.2) for the AY 2010-11. Since