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)

37. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed, and the order of the Assessing Officer, in so far as it relates to treating the interest income as something not allowable as a deduction under section 80P(2)(a), is set aside.” 12. Further, the Coordinate Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP UNION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income\nderived from the investments made in the Fixed Deposits with KDCC Bank\nLimited. Ld. AO by relying on the decision in the case of Pr.CIT v. Totgars Co-\noperative Society (322 ITR 283) disallowed the deduction claimed by the\nassessee and added it to the total income of the assessee

SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

disallowance\nof interest under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act consideringthe interest received\nfrom State Bank of India is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.\nOn this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] relied on\nthe Coordinate Bench decision in the case of ITO v. The Kakateeya Mutually\nAided Thrift and Credit

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the submissions made by the Ld.AR and has held in para no 6.5.1 as follows: “6.5.1 Consultation Fees paid (Rs.84,01,360/-) :- Out of the total consultancy charges paid of Rs.91,24,989/-, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

37,83,670\n24. Thereafter, Ld. AO, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on\n04.04.2022 and notice under section 142(1) was issued on various dates. In\nresponse, assessee filed return of income on 12.07.2022 and claimed deduction\nunder section claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessee filed\nits submissions justifying

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

37,83,670\n24. Thereafter, Ld. AO, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on\n04.04.2022 and notice under section 142(1) was issued on various dates. In\nresponse, assessee filed return of income on 12.07.2022 and claimed deduction\nunder section claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessee filed\nits submissions justifying

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

37,83,670\n24.\nThereafter, Ld. AO, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on\n04.04.2022 and notice under section 142(1) was issued on various dates. In\nresponse, assessee filed return of income on 12.07.2022 and claimed deduction\nunder section claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessee filed\nits submissions justifying

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public financial institutions”; “scheduled

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public financial institutions”; “scheduled

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public financial institutions”; “scheduled

THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public financial institutions”; “scheduled

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public financial institutions”; “scheduled