ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 4. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing.” Further, the assessee has also raised additional ground 3. vide its petition dated 22/11/2016 which reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATINS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 4. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing.” Further, the assessee has also raised additional ground 3. vide its petition dated 22/11/2016 which reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

2,32,202/-; (ii) disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the assessee’s claim for deduction of provision towards tax audit expenses: Rs. 40,000/-; (iii) addition of the unreconciled interest income as reflected in Form No. 26AS vis-à-vis books of account of Rs. 1,35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTION CIR, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI KOUNDINYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAJAHMUNDRY

section 13(1)(c), 13(2)(a), 13(2)(g) & 13(2)(h) of the Act. On this\nissue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR"] fully\nsupported the orders of the Ld. AO. Ld. DR also placed reliance on the\nfollowing case laws: -\ni.\nii.\niii.\nPrathyusha Educational Trust v. Pr.CIT (108 taxmann.com 385 [Madras])\nPr.CIT v. Maharaja Educational

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 was called for in its case under Section 14A of the Act. 30. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below. 31. At the threshold, we may herein observe that there is no substance in the claim of the revenue that

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 was called for in its case under Section 14A of the Act. 30. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below. 31. At the threshold, we may herein observe that there is no substance in the claim of the revenue that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

35. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. Page No. 15 I.T.A.Nos.145, 146, 147 & 148/VIZ/2025 I.T.A.Nos.184, 185, 186 & 187/VIZ/2025 M/s. NS Healthcare Services Private Limited 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of rent paid under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS, and additions towards difference in net profit declared for the assessment year 2015-16 and assessment year 2017-18 for Rs.4,23,755/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of rent paid under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS, and additions towards difference in net profit declared for the assessment year 2015-16 and assessment year 2017-18 for Rs.4,23,755/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished the relevant information as called

HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished the relevant information as called

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

35,169/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 3,43,42,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for information. The assessee’s Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and furnished the relevant information as called