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

house property and not business income. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the said addition was made in the absence of requisite information such as copy of sanction letters of local authority and details of plans approved by the local authority, working of income and expenses of these projects and requisite approvals Ground

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

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

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

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

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

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-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

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

8D of IT Rules and disallowed proportionate interest and indirect expenditure. As far as interest expenditure is concerned it was held in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2008-09 by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal that the assessee has proved that it has not utilized borrowed funds and also the usage of own surplus funds