NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of claim made u/s. 80IB of the Act amounting to\nRs.38,75,92,325/-.\n6.\nOn this issue Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"]\nsubmitted that the provisions of section 80IB of the Act states that \"profits\nderived from the business of an industrial undertaking\" cannot be applied on\nnarrow meaning because of the fact that DEPB benefits are derived

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

275/- u/s 54F of the Act. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer conducted enquiries in respect of the above issue and as such it is not a case of lack of inquiry to enable the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke the provisions of section

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

275/- u/s 54F of the Act. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer conducted enquiries in respect of the above issue and as such it is not a case of lack of inquiry to enable the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke the provisions of section

SRI SEETARAMANJANENYA SORTEX,KAKINADA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed. 1. Commission Rs.86,16,730 2. Contract Rs.4,46,16,749 3. Prof. Charges Rs.14,54,820 The Ld.PCIT held that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 12.03.2021 for the A.Y.2018-19 was prima facie erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, proposed for revision

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

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

275/- after deducting tax at source at Rs.14,35,169/- from the total benefits of Rs.1,22,50,444/-. Assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2020-21 on 25/11/2020 admitting income of Rs.52,31,590/- and claimed exemption of Rs.13,21,198/- in respect of gratuity. 3. The return of income filed by the assessee was taken

YENUGUVANI LANKA RURAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YENUGUVANI LANKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Yenuguvani Lanka Rural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Educational Society, Income Tax Buildings, D.No.2-76, New Harijana Peta, Near Govt. College, Yenuguvani Lanka. Doddipatla Road, Palakol, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaaay 2757 K (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

disallowed the gross receipts due to failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the requisite Form No.10B along with return of income as required under Rule 17B of the IT Rules, 1962. The CPC, Bangalore taxed the entire gross receipt at the maximum marginal rate. Aggrieved by the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before