THE ACIT., CIRCLE - 1, 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)(v

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)(v

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)(v

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)(v

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)(v

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 u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

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 u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

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 u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

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 u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

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 u/s 36(1)(iii), when the corresponding assets were not put to use. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief towards proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs 13,98,37,651/-by ignoring the Sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4) from the Main promoter

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.

36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is found to be valid and proper in fact and law. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 2,32,202/- on the above account is confirmed and the ground no. 1 of the appellant is dismissed. 5.4 Ground No. 3 relates

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,, TENALI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.77 & 78/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Acit Vs. The Guntur District Circle-1(1) Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Guntur Tenali, Guntur [Pan : Aaatt6101H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,, TENALI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.77 & 78/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Acit Vs. The Guntur District Circle-1(1) Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Guntur Tenali, Guntur [Pan : Aaatt6101H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

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

v) of sub- section (2), the account referred to therein shall be only one account in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts under clause (viia) and such account shall relate to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches;" 34. It can be seen from the history of Sec.36(1)(viia) of the Act that

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

v) of sub- section (2), the account referred to therein shall be only one account in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts under clause (viia) and such account shall relate to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches;" 34. It can be seen from the history of Sec.36(1)(viia) of the Act that

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

disallowed Rs 60,34,059/-, invoking the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), which was migrated to the NFAC in terms of (The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.) notification No.76/2020 in S.O.No. 3296(E), dated 25/09/2020

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

V. Bharti Televentures Ltd. : 331 ITR 502 (Del.) 4. Under section 36(1)(iii) the following conditions are required to be satisfied before the assessee can successfully claim deduction in respect of interest paid : (a) The assessee should have borrowed capital; (b) The borrowing of the capital should be for the purpose of the business and (c) Interest should have

DASARI BUJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. So far as section 143(1) is concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that an incorrect claim