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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

section 143(3) of the Act by making the following additions / disallowances: Sl Amount Nature of addition / disallowance No (Rs.) 1. Upfront premium added as income 75,14,24,443 2. Disallowance of Excess claim of depreciation 18,42,68,301

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

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied upon certain judicial precedents which are in favour of the revenue, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192, wherein

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

disallowing the long-term capital gains claimed as\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act and thereby we allow the ground\nraised by the assessee.\n\n31. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\nITA No. 150/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2006-07) – (APPEAL RELATING TO SANTOSH AGRAWAL).\n\n32. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

disallowing the long-term capital gains claimed as\nexemption under section 10(38) of the Act and thereby we allow the ground\nraised by the assessee.\n31. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 150/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2006-07) – (APPEAL RELATING TO SANTOSH AGRAWAL).\n32. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1. On the facts

DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD,AKIVIDU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 302/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Durga Kumari Mohammad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward –1 20-23, Madakavari Street, Akividu Bhimavaram West Godavari District – 534235 West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Dmkpm3133F] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) : K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 147 r.w.s. Page No. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 302/VIZ/2024 DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD 144 of the Act by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,31,48,343/- considering the total share (10.90%) investments of Rs.2,07,100/- in M/s.Subham Developers for purchase of lands as income of the assessee being unexplained investment under the head income from other

DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD,AKIVIDU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 302/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Durga Kumari Mohammad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward –1 20-23, Madakavari Street, Akividu Bhimavaram West Godavari District – 534235 West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Dmkpm3133F] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) : K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 147 r.w.s. Page No. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 302/VIZ/2024 DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD 144 of the Act by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,31,48,343/- considering the total share (10.90%) investments of Rs.2,07,100/- in M/s.Subham Developers for purchase of lands as income of the assessee being unexplained investment under the head income from other

GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. These issues are dealt with by us while adjudicating the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 (AY 2018-19) and ITA No. 227/Viz/2022 (AY 2019-20) and held that with regard to late remittance of contribution under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. These issues are dealt with by us while adjudicating the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 (AY 2018-19) and ITA No. 227/Viz/2022 (AY 2019-20) and held that with regard to late remittance of contribution under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. These issues are dealt with by us while adjudicating the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 (AY 2018-19) and ITA No. 227/Viz/2022 (AY 2019-20) and held that with regard to late remittance of contribution under

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

301) determined that\nthe exchange rate difference on the foreign currency amount covered by the\nforward contracts outstanding as on the balance sheet date of Rs.18,06,51,740/-\nshall not be allowed as deduction. He therefore directed the Ld. AO to disallow\nthe exchange rate difference on foreign currency covered by the forward\ncontracts outstanding as on the balance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUDIWADA vs. DANDU MADHU VARMA, BHUJABALAPATNAM

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

section 142(1) of the Act, but, also it extends to various issues, on which, the Assessing Officer feels to examine the issue during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, going by the reason for CASS selection, the case has been selected for scrutiny to verify large turnover for not submitting tax audit report and, 11 ITA.Nos.129 & 40/Vizag/2025 therefore

DANDU MADHUVARMA,BHUJAPALAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

section 142(1) of the Act, but, also it extends to various issues, on which, the Assessing Officer feels to examine the issue during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, going by the reason for CASS selection, the case has been selected for scrutiny to verify large turnover for not submitting tax audit report and, 11 ITA.Nos.129 & 40/Vizag/2025 therefore

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

section 1(2) of the Act, the provisions of the Act extend to the whole of India, which means that any exemption or deduction cannot be allowed in respect of the amounts invested / reinvested outside India. The CBDT Circular No.1/2015 dated 21.01.2015 clearly mentioned that the benefit was intended for investment in residential house within India. The 5 ITA No.178/Viz/2018