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) of the Act. 3. The AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2016, made certain additions/disallowances to the returned income of the assessee company, viz. (i) disallowance under section 36

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

2 -do- 615009 15/08/2016 20/08/2016 3 -do- 616939 15/09/2016 17/09/2019 4 -do- 689693 15/12/2016 17/01/2017 5 -do- 780771 15/01/2017 17/01/2017 6 -do- 919669 15/02/2017 17/02/2017 7 -do- 764078 15/03/2017 11/04/2017 8 -do- 361960 15/04/2017 02/05/2017 6034059 The AO disallowed Rs 60,34,059/-, invoking the amended provisions of section 36

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B(b) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that there is no distinction between employer and employee contribution after omission of second proviso of section 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004. We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B(b) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that there is no distinction between employer and employee contribution after omission of second proviso of section 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004. We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that

NO 368 KOLAKALURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee society is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.456/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20) No.368 Kolakaluru Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-1, Credit Society Limited, Tenali. Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information disseminated in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy (RMS), which revealed that the assessee society had during the subject year made cash deposits/withdrawals aggregating

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

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

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent

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

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent

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

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent

LOHMAN CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) 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)

disallowance of deduction claimed on account of Employees’ contribution to PF & ESI by invoking the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, treating the amended provisions applicability as retrospective. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee admitted the factual positions. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the payment to employees contribution

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

section 36(1)(viia) r.w.rule 6ABA of IT Rules which is as under : Amount Sl.No. Particulars (Rs.) 1. Actual provision made in the books of account 2,65,10,567 during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11 (including provision for Standard Assets amounting to Rs.47,93,922/-) 2. 7.5.% of the total income (computed before making

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

section 36(1)(viia) r.w.rule 6ABA of IT Rules which is as under : Amount Sl.No. Particulars (Rs.) 1. Actual provision made in the books of account 2,65,10,567 during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11 (including provision for Standard Assets amounting to Rs.47,93,922/-) 2. 7.5.% of the total income (computed before making

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM vs. THE YENDAGANDHI LARGE SIZE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, YEDAGANDI

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1 V. The Yendagandhi Large Size Cooperative Society Limited Opp. Ganesh Canteen 4-16, Kk Road, Yendagandhi J.P. Road, Bhimavaram – 534202 West Godavari District – 534186 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the I.T Act made by the assessee, in the assessment order dated 12-09-2022, clearly stated that the DCCB has been issued license by RBI u/s. 22(1) r.w. 56(0) of the Banking Regulation Act dated 06.02.2012 and therefore, the DCCB being a bank cannot be considered

KLMM HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Klmm Hospital Private Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer 29-14-58, Prakasam Road Ward - 1(1) Surya Rao Peta Visakhapatnam Vijayawada [Pan : Aadck4136F] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the above effects as under. Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause.” 4. Aggrieved by the order