RAJAM POLYPACKS LIMITED,RAJAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.258/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Rajam Polypacks Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponduru Road Ward-2 Rajam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr0489G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ya Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/ 1036317185(1) Dated 12.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018- 19. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dated 12.10.2021 Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.56,448/- & Rs.2,53,947/- By Invoking Provisions Of Sec.36(1A) R.W.S. 43(B) Of I.T.Act Is Illegal & Unjust After Relying On The Amendment Brought By Finance Act, 2021 To Sec.36(5A) R.W.S. (43B).

disallowance of PF which was remitted before the due date for filing return of income. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed it’s return of income declaring nil income after claiming set off of unabsorbed business losses

DASARI BUJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

EASTERN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

TETALI ANIL KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

SRI RANGA MOTORS,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

T SRINIVASA RAO&CO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

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

disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit

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

disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit

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

disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit

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

disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit

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

disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs.6,36,87,756/- on the bogus plant and machinery claimed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also observed differences in stock wherein the excess stock was valued at Rs. 1,83,46,348/- and deficit stock was valued at Rs. 1,05,77,853/-. The assessee set off the excess stock with the deficit

THE YANAM CO OPERATIVE STORES LIMITED,YANAM vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.360/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Yanam Cooperative Stores Limited V. Pr.Cit 3-2-058, Vishnalayam Street Aayakar Bhavan Dabagarden – 530020 Yanam – 533464 Visakhapatnam Puducherry Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadft3518R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

loss shall be disallowed as the return of income was not filed within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] argued that assessee is a non-filer and has not filed his return of income within the time allowed under section

HERO WIRETEX LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.37/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Hero Wiretex Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Anthakapalli Village Income Tax Ponduru Road, Rajam Central Circle-1 Vizianagarm Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcs 1425R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

set aside the issue to the file of AO for the limited purpose of verification to check whether the payee has filed his return of income and paid of the taxes within stipulated time and held that If it has done so no disallowance shall be made, which was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

LAKSHMIVARAPRASADA SURENDRANATH SAI MEKA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, MACHILIPATNAM, MACHILIPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.99/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lakshmi Varaprasada Vs. Income Tax Officer, Surendranath Sai Meka, Ward-1, D.No. 3-61, Kosuru, Parasupet, Machilipatnam, Kosuru Post, Movva Mandalam, Krishna District, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521002. Andhra Pradesh – 521150. Pan: Acbpm5900G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Cr Hemanth Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

set off income against loss derived by the assessee is also not allowed as the assessee has failed to declare the same in the return of income. Thus, the Ld. AO added the amount of Rs. 15,75,352/- as undisclosed income of the assessee and made addition and determined the assessed income of the assessee

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.

set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 69,43,433/- . Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(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

SIONC PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY 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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

PADMASREE STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAVULAPALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.292/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Dcit – Circle –1 Padmasree Steels Private Limited Rs No. 109 & 110 Devarapalli 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers Main Road Ravulapalem – 533238 Kakinada – 533001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcp2642P]

setting off brought forward loss. However, assessee computed tax as per MAT under section 115JB of the Act and declared the deemed total income at Rs.1,51,95,147/-. The return was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 24.05.2019 and subsequently rectified on 28.11.2019. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

set-off of brought forward losses of Rs. 8,02,34,501/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income and the case was not taken up for scrutiny. Subsequently, the case was reopened U/s. 147 of the Act with the prior approval of the competent Authority. In response to the statutory notice issued