MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 36(1)(iii). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest

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.

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employees

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 U/s. 36(1)(va) has been made while processing the return U/s. 143(1) of the Act claiming it to be an incorrect claim 7 as defined U/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Explanation to section

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 U/s. 36(1)(va) has been made while processing the return U/s. 143(1) of the Act claiming it to be an incorrect claim 7 as defined U/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Explanation to section

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 U/s. 36(1)(va) has been made while processing the return U/s. 143(1) of the Act claiming it to be an incorrect claim 7 as defined U/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Explanation to section

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. CHATANYA GODAVARI,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

disallowed and added back to income. The authorized representative submitted explanation stating that as per section 36(1)(viia) of I.T.Act

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. CHATANYA GODAVARI,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

disallowed and added back to income. The authorized representative submitted explanation stating that as per section 36(1)(viia) of I.T.Act

LOHMAN CASTINGS PVT LTD,ANAKAPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.262 & 263/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer C5 To C7, Nh-5 Ward-1 Industrial Development Area Anakapalle Anakapalle [Pan : Aaacl5905E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied

LOHMAN CASTINGS PVT LTD,ANAKAPALLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.262 & 263/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Lohman Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer C5 To C7, Nh-5 Ward-1 Industrial Development Area Anakapalle Anakapalle [Pan : Aaacl5905E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

disallowance of deduction claimed on account of Employees‟ contribution to PF & ESI by invoking the (The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.) amended provisions of section 36(1

GVK POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

36(1)(iii) and 37(1) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.51,71,23,460/- on 28.11.2014. Subsequently, the assessee had filed the revised return of income on 18.02.2016 declaring loss of Rs.6,01,05,172/-. In the original return of income filed on 28.11.2014, the assessee had disallowed

THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,,ELURU vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

disallowed the same since the payment made to LIC of India towards group gratuity scheme is not covered by section 36(1

M/S THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,ELURU vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, ELURU, ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

disallowed the same since the payment made to LIC of India towards group gratuity scheme is not covered by section 36(1

THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,,ELURU vs. THE ACIT,, ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

disallowed the same since the payment made to LIC of India towards group gratuity scheme is not covered by section 36(1

THE ITO, WARD-2, ELURU, ELURU vs. M/S THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

disallowed the same since the payment made to LIC of India towards group gratuity scheme is not covered by section 36(1

THE ACIT,, ELURU vs. M/S. THE DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., ELURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

disallowed the same since the payment made to LIC of India towards group gratuity scheme is not covered by section 36(1