SARADAMBIKA POWER PLANT (P) LTD, SRIKAKULAM,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsaradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd., Plot No.15, Konna Street, Radha Krishna Nagar Colony, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh - 532001 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajcs5970R V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

disallowance of interest under section 43B of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the penalty order dated 25.02.2022 was passed by the AO under section 271

CH RAMA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

disallowance in the present case was not due to Section 14A but due to the utilization of borrowed funds by the Managing Partner.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "271

CH RAMA RAO ,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.344 & 345/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 2016-17) Ch Rama Rao V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(4) C.R. Building 4-99, Ramavarappadu Vijayawada- 520002 Vijayawada – 521108 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfc0545L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallow the proportionate interest claimed by the assessee which was also accepted by the assessee. Ld. AO thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

N R CONSTRUCTIONS,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

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. 18/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) N R Constructions V. Acit – Circle – 1 Kakinada 2-59-7, Shanthi Nagar Kakinada – 533003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aabfn7969A] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Ms. Keerthana, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

disallow 10% of labour expenses instead of taking 8% as profit on the total receipts. Further aggrieved, the matter was carried before the ITAT Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

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:

271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the 15 assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result

VENKATA RAMA SATYANARAYANA VARMA VEGESNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

disallowance by the Commissioer of Income Tax (Appeals) is unwarranted. Hence, the appellant prays the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam to consder the submission of the appellant in this regard by granting relief. 3. As the income of Rs.19,99,999/- itself is a deemed income u/s 2(22)(e), it is not justified on the part

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked and interwoven, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) regarding quantum assessment

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked and interwoven, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) regarding quantum assessment

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the excess cost of construction & deduction U/s. 50G of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order on 10/12/2018 determining the total income at Rs. 15,63,290/-. Further, penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for concealment of income. Against the addition made by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of the employees’ share of contribution towards Provident Fund: Rs. 16,382/-. 4. Thereafter, the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, observed that the assessee had during the subject year sold certain properties for a consideration of Rs. 72.75 lacs. It was observed by him that

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance of pit filling charges of Rs. 20,41,800/- to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/08/2019 upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO on the above two issues and accordingly worked out the revised total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,27,54,387/-. Thus, considering

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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, , VISAKHAPTNAM

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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even

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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even

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)

disallowance U/s. 14A a sum of Rs. 5,09,64,466/-. 4. The Ld. CIT ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer was justified in allowing this amount at the time of completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT erred in observing that the provisions of section 14A would be attracted even