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

house property”, and had wrongly concluded that the same\nwas rightly disclosed by the assessee company as its “business income”,\ncannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.\n19. Apropos the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A r.w\nRule 8D of Rs. 15,42,448/- that was scaled down by the CIT(A) to the\nextent

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

House Property: Rs. 1,35,000/-; (ii) Income from Salary: Rs. 12,05,509/-; and (iii) Income from Other Sources: Rs. NIL. Thereafter the AO/CPC, Bengaluru vide an intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 11.01.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 27,57

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VITTALAM NATARAJ PRASAD, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI,, TIRUPATI

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

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

section we find that any return filed u/s. 139 or in response to a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act can be selected for a scrutiny within six months from the end of the assessment year in which the return was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) dated 24/1/2016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

57,662/-, vide his order passed u/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, dated 28.07.2021. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Section 201(1)/201(1A), dated 28.07.2021 before the CIT(A). 6. On a perusal of the record, we find that the principal contentions raised by the assessee before

VENKATA SURYANARAYANA VISWANADHAM,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2015-16 Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Viswanadham, Vizayanagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan : Adnpv5136A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar (Hybrid) Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

57,530/-, out of which ₹36,268/- (not previously declared) was also added. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, with a total assessed income of ₹21,13,738/- and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 29.01.2024. 3.1 Aggrieved with such assessment order, the assessee has filed

GOLAGANI SREENIVAS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.467/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Golagani Sreenivas V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-5(1) D.No. 18-97 Income Tax Office Old Diary Farm, Pedagadili Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam – 530040 Mvp Colony Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Agopg4394D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

property, the sources of which are required to be examined. Accordingly notice under 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2017 was issued and served on the assessee through ITBA. In response, assessee filed copy of registered purchase document. It is also noticed that the assessee purchased 400 sq.yds site together with AC sheets house having plinth area of 300 sq.ft

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

property. Following the same logic, to deny the benefit of additional depreciation to a generating entity on the basis that electricity is not an “article” or “thing” is in our view an artificially restrictive meaning of the provision. The benefit of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

housing loan interest of Rs. 5,96,817/- and the Ld. AO examined the loan interest certificate submitted by the assessee before the Ld. AO and hence it is not correct to state that proper verification has not been carried on by the AO. 5 I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Sinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist. 5. On the facts