GRANDHI ANUPAMA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.266/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Smt.Grandhi Anupama Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.26-08-62 Income Tax R.R.M.R.Road Circle-4(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aeepg9011P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15 .11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

section 14A of the Act and restricted the disallowance proportionately on the basis of income earnings on 2 streams of income earned by the assessee i.e. interest receipt which is taxable and share of profit which is exempt from taxation. The assessee is free to draw the remuneration from the partnership firm as provided

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.

disallowed Rs. 40,000/-u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by stating that the provision which is debited to P&L a/c was not an allowance expenditure for the year consideration. Submission of the appellant was perused which is devoid of any merits. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of the A.O. Ground of appeal

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowing the outstanding loan amount payable by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the company has submitted complete information with regard to the identity Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED and credit worthiness of the lender along with supporting documents provided by the lender to prove

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowing the outstanding loan amount payable by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the company has submitted complete information with regard to the identity Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED and credit worthiness of the lender along with supporting documents provided by the lender to prove

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowing the outstanding loan amount payable by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the company has submitted complete information with regard to the identity Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED and credit worthiness of the lender along with supporting documents provided by the lender to prove

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

Bench: Us:

disallowing the claim made for Rs. 9,00,00,000/-, the AO has relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Roshan Di Hatti (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) which is distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, the appellant, in the case on hand has relied in support of his claim on the decisions rendered

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has added savings bank, special savings bank, short term deposits and various categories of deposits including opening balances as unsecured loans and addition was made under section

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has added savings bank, special savings bank, short term deposits and various categories of deposits including opening balances as unsecured loans and addition was made under section

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has added savings bank, special savings bank, short term deposits and various categories of deposits including opening balances as unsecured loans and addition was made under section

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

46A. Thus, these grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 relating to sustenance of addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has added savings bank, special savings bank, short term deposits and various categories of deposits including opening balances as unsecured loans and addition was made under section

MALIPEDDI GIRIDHAR,AMALAPURAM vs. THE ASSTISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Malipeddi Giridhar V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-1 Income Tax Office D.No.7-1-20, Mgr Mall Deepthi Towers Tk Street, High School Road Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 East Godavari District – 533201 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amhpm0210B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

disallowed Rs 10,54,065/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, depreciation of Rs 6,24,965/- and expenditure of Rs.4,33,212/- u/s 37(1) of the Act. Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.169/VIZ/2024 MALIPEDDI GIRIDHAR 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.314/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nord Anglia Education Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcv2255L (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.205/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Nord Anglia Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcv2255L (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: 1. Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr 2

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 29/12/2016, 27/12/2019 and 20/09/2021. As common issues are involved in the present appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall, as requested by 3 ITA No.314 & 206/Viz/2025 ITA No. 205/Viz/2024 Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI TUMMALA VENKATA SURESH BABU, (HUF), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.293/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-2(3), Sri Tummala Venkata Vijayawada Suresh Babu (Huf) Vijayawada [Pan No.Aacht2890M] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Dr प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y. Surya Chandra Rao, Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

section (4) of the Act. Even otherwise it is settled issue that the Ld.CIT(A) is competent and empowered to make further enquiries by himself. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. D.R. with regard to submission of additional evidence and calling for remand report.. The A.O’s case is not that construction

RAMYA CHARITABLE TRUST,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.61/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramya Charitable Trust V. Ito (Exemption Ward) D.No. 9-11-130 Income Tax Office Elvinpeta, Kakinada – 533004 Aayakar Bhavan Andhra Pradesh Veerabhadrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 [Pan: Aactr4315H] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 11 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices for which assessee submitted written submissions Page No. 3 I.T.A.No.61/VIZ/2024 Ramya Charitable Trust electronically. Assessee also filed a petition for admission of additional evidences which was referred to the Ld. AO vide letter dated 16.05.2023. Ld. AO in response submitted the Remand Report on 30.06.2023. Ld. AO citing

THE ACIT., VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. KRNTI ROAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making the disallowance of ` 14,16,600/- on account of lease rent paid to the directors and disallowance of ` 2,12,64,270/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. As regards the disallowance made

AAYUSH NRI LEPL HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 139(5) of the ITAct. Page No. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 135 & 136/VIZ/2023 Aayush NRI LEPL Healthcare Private Limited 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such disregard. 9. The appellant prays that

AAYUSH NRI LEPL HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 139(5) of the ITAct. Page No. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 135 & 136/VIZ/2023 Aayush NRI LEPL Healthcare Private Limited 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such disregard. 9. The appellant prays that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUDIWADA vs. DANDU MADHU VARMA, BHUJABALAPATNAM

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

section 142(1) of the Act, but, also it extends to various issues, on which, the Assessing Officer feels to examine the issue during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, going by the reason for CASS selection, the case has been selected for scrutiny to verify large turnover for not submitting tax audit report and, 11 ITA.Nos.129 & 40/Vizag/2025 therefore