THE CHANDARLAPDU LARGE SIZE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CHANDARLAPADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chandarlapdu Large Size V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(3) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex. Cooperative Credit Society Limited 2-10, Society Building M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Bobbilapadu Road, Chandarlapadu Post Mandal Andhra Pradesh Krishna District – 521182, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat7616A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO arrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income filed belatedly as invalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced herein below for reference: “80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction

KUNTAMUKKALA PREMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,G KONDURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), , VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.247/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kuntamukkala Primary Agriculture V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(3) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex. Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. G-2157, Kuntamukkala Pacs M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Kuntamukkala, G. Konduru Mandal Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh – 521229 [Pan: Aabak5873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO arrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income filed belatedly as invalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced herein below for reference: “80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction

THE KOLAVENNU LARGE SIZED CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Kolavennu Large Sized Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(4) Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Office D.No. 3-3/1, Kolavennu Cr Building, 1St Floor, Annex Kankipadu Mandal M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Krishna District - 521153 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabat0640F] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO arrived at this conclusion by treating the return of Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.454/VIZ/2025 The Kolavennu Large Sized Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., incomefiled belatedly as invalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced herein below for reference: “80A(5) Where the assessee

THE MACHILIPATNAM POSTAL DEPTL & GDS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NO H164,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 Aayakar Bhavan, Parasupeta Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aafat5514L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act. On this issue, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”) submitted that assessee has filed return of income in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act belatedly and physically on 03.10.2019 and Ld. AO treated the return as non-est. He further submitted that the assessee being

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO\narrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income filed belatedly as\ninvalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are\nreproduced herein below for reference:\n“80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income\nfor

BAPULAPADU SRI RAMA HANUMAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY ,BAPULAPADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.157/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bapulapadu Sri Rama Hanuman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Coop. Gudiwada. Society, Bapulapadu. Pan: Aadab3431C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : No Representation ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO arrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income as invalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced herein below for reference: “80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO\narrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income filed belatedly as\ninvalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are\nreproduced herein below for reference:\n“80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income\nfor

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO\narrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income filed belatedly as\ninvalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are\nreproduced herein below for reference:\n“80A(5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income\nfor

THE KRISHNA FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAGGAIAHPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

disallowed the deduction Page No. 6 I.T.A.No.130/VIZ/2025 The Krishna Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO arrived at this conclusion by treating the return of income filed belatedly as invalid and non-est. Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced herein below for reference: “80A(5) Where the assessee fails

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.

disallowance was called for in its case under Section 14A of the Act. 30. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below. 31. At the threshold, we may herein observe that there is no substance in the claim of the revenue that

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.

disallowance was called for in its case under Section 14A of the Act. 30. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below. 31. At the threshold, we may herein observe that there is no substance in the claim of the revenue that

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence

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 40A(3) of the Act out of the expenditure incurred under patient refund account without bringing any corroborative evidences of such nature of payment. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in directing the AO to estimate disallowance @ 25% out of the expenditure claimed under referral payments of Rs.34,84,567/- without any basis and any justifiable evidence