KOTU ANASUYA (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

KOTU SARAT KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DY.CIT., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

DY CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. KOTU SARATH KUMAR`, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR vs. NSL TEXTILES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. Nsl Textiles Ltd., Nsl Icon, 4Th Floor, D.No. Guntur. 8-2-684/2/A, Banjara Hills, Road No. 12, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aabcj 1299 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

RAMYA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Ramya Constructions, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O T. Chaitanyakumar, Adv., Vijayawada. Flat No. 102, Gouri Apartment, Urdu Lane, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aadcr 1165 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARITA SYNTHETICS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, RAJAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.488 & 489/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-2014 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Sarita Synthetics & Circle-4(1) Industries Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.11-8-120 Anthakapalli Village Srikakulam [Pan :Aadcs4025R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : None

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARITA SYNTHETICS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, , SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.488 & 489/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-2014 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Sarita Synthetics & Circle-4(1) Industries Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.11-8-120 Anthakapalli Village Srikakulam [Pan :Aadcs4025R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : None

Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. V. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the ground of appeal on the addition of Rs. 17,37,69,180/- made towards interest disallowed on capital borrowed to construct properties, by holding that this interest income is allowed as incurred for business purpose since the receipts from lessee has been held to be income from business and profession. This

ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

property, other sources and agricultural income from warehousing filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. NIL (Loss of Rs. 2,83,99,853/-). The main source of business income is license fee collected from the tenants for the ware housing godowns at various places viz., Visakhapatnam, Kakinada and Hyderabad

ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED .,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

property, other sources and agricultural income from warehousing filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. NIL (Loss of Rs. 2,83,99,853/-). The main source of business income is license fee collected from the tenants for the ware housing godowns at various places viz., Visakhapatnam, Kakinada and Hyderabad

ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

property, other sources and agricultural income from warehousing filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. NIL (Loss of Rs. 2,83,99,853/-). The main source of business income is license fee collected from the tenants for the ware housing godowns at various places viz., Visakhapatnam, Kakinada and Hyderabad

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. EAST COAST IMPORTS & EXPORTS,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S East Coast Imports & Circle-1 Exports Kakinada D.No.67-15-32, Office No.1 Nagamallithota Junction Kakinada [Pan : Aacfe2078A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.49/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.79/Viz/2021) M/S East Coast Imports & Exports Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.67-15-32, Office No.1 Circle-1 Nagamallithota Junction Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aacfe2078A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-2, Visakhapatnam In Ita

house property’. Only the 4 ITA No.79/Viz/2021 and CO 49/Viz/2021, A.Y.2012-13 M/s East Coast Imports & Exports, Kakinada balance amount was claimed under the head ‘income from business’. Out of the balance interest of Rs.66,67,752/-, the sum of Rs.21,62,408/- was paid on partner’s capital account and a sum of Rs.20,46,346/- was the interest relating

ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

housing godowns at various places viz., Visakhapatnam, Kakinada and Hyderabad. Sri AT Rayudu and Sri A. Avnash are the Directors of the assessee-company who hold 45% each of the share- holding in the company. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 15/09/2014 but the assessment got abated as search

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend was received during the year and no expenditure was incurred either. 7. The Ld. AO also made addition

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend was received during the year and no expenditure was incurred either. 7. The Ld. AO also made addition

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.19,27,456/- having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation that though the assessee made investments in certain companies which was made in the earlier years and no dividend was received during the year and no expenditure was incurred either. 7. The Ld. AO also made addition

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

Housing (P) Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Visakhapatnam. Tax, PAN: AADCA 2121 Q Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 21/12/2022 Pronouncement

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

Housing (P) Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Visakhapatnam. Tax, PAN: AADCA 2121 Q Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 21/12/2022 Pronouncement