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.

XVII-B in coloumn 21(b)(i)(A). AO to verify and delete the said addition if submission of appellant is found correct. Appellant to be given adequate opportunity of being heard on the same. Appellant to produce documents to satisfy its claim before AO. 6.6. Ground of Appeal No. 7– linked to ground 5 & 6 and hence disposed along

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.

XVII-B in coloumn 21(b)(i)(A). AO to verify and delete the said addition if submission of appellant is found correct. Appellant to be given adequate opportunity of being heard on the same. Appellant to produce documents to satisfy its claim before AO. 6.6. Ground of Appeal No. 7– linked to ground 5 & 6 and hence disposed along

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

xvii) CIT Vs.Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (1997) 227 ITR 802 (Ker). 5.13 In the case of CIT Vs. A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846 (Mad), the assessee, owner of certain land which was in possession of two tenants entered into an agreement for sale to a third party who insisted on getting vacant possession of the land. Consequently, the assessee paid