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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

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

72. Therefore, once this condition is not fulfilled, the acquirer bank is not eligible to carry forward the said losses/unabsorbed depreciation as per the provisions of section 72AB. Coming to the issue of RBI guidelines with regard to amortizing of losses, the specific provisions of Income Tax Act override the general provisions of Cooperative Society’s Act/RBI guidelines. In view

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

disallow the claim of carry forward depreciation set off against the additions made u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the AO is directed to allow the set off of carry forward depreciation.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. Appearing for the revenue, the Ld.DR argued that unexplained cash credits

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

72,498/- towards disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. 43. The Assessing Officer has disallowed in respect of construction

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

72,498/- towards disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. 43. The Assessing Officer has disallowed in respect of construction

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

72,498/- towards disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. 43. The Assessing Officer has disallowed in respect of construction

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

72,498/- towards disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. 43. The Assessing Officer has disallowed in respect of construction

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

72,600/- 4. Based on the statements recorded from the Managing Director during the survey operations, Assessing Officer made a disallowance amounting to Rs.1,55,42,604/- considering it as payment to bogus sub-contractors. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed sum of Rs. 68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

72,600/- 4. Based on the statements recorded from the Managing Director during the survey operations, Assessing Officer made a disallowance amounting to Rs.1,55,42,604/- considering it as payment to bogus sub-contractors. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed sum of Rs. 68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

72,600/- 4. Based on the statements recorded from the Managing Director during the survey operations, Assessing Officer made a disallowance amounting to Rs.1,55,42,604/- considering it as payment to bogus sub-contractors. Further, Assessing Officer also disallowed sum of Rs. 68,10,031/- in respect of VAT Payable under section

CHALASANI VENKAT,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Chalasani Venkat, Vijayawada. D.No. 40-10-2B, Pent House, Ramapriya Residency, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Ahvpc 1673 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of interest of Rs. 31,00,530/-. C.O.No. 03/VIZ/2018 (Chalasani Venkat) 11. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has shown work-in-progress for CVR Chambers (on which income from house property offered) at Rs.1,32,70,142/- and Rs. 1,00,49,992/- for Tadigadapa Venture (on which profit offered on sale

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

disallowance of Rs. 14,72,27,627/-. In submissions made by the Ld. AR we find that similar contributions have also made with respect to pension payments made during the year. Further, we also accept the contention of the Ld. AR that the actuarial valuation as on 31/3/2011 works out to Rs. 1,896.07 Crs and the assessee

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

disallowance of Rs. 14,72,27,627/-. In submissions made by the Ld. AR we find that similar contributions have also made with respect to pension payments made during the year. Further, we also accept the contention of the Ld. AR that the actuarial valuation as on 31/3/2011 works out to Rs. 1,896.07 Crs and the assessee

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

72. Therefore once this condition is not fulfilled, the acquirer bank is not eligible to carry forward the said losses/ unabsorbed depreciation as per the provisions of section 72AB. Coming to the issue of RBI guidelines with regard to amortizing of losses, the specific provisions of Income Tax Act override the general provisions of cooperative society's act/RBI guidelines

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

72. Therefore once this condition is not fulfilled, the acquirer bank is not eligible to carry forward the said losses/ unabsorbed depreciation as per the provisions of section 72AB. Coming to the issue of RBI guidelines with regard to amortizing of losses, the specific provisions of Income Tax Act override the general provisions of cooperative society's act/RBI guidelines

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) defines the expression ‘royalty’ and in our opinion

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) defines the expression ‘royalty’ and in our opinion

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) defines the expression ‘royalty’ and in our opinion

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance 14 I.T.A.No.191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 197/Viz/2024 AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd U/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as ‘royalty’ paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) defines the expression ‘royalty’ and in our opinion