D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA‟s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision of the coordinate

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act against settled principle of law.” 19. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the Ld.Pr.CIT has exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his view and observing that the Ld. AO has passed an erroneous order which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act against settled principle of law.” 19. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the Ld.Pr.CIT has exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his view and observing that the Ld. AO has passed an erroneous order which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

u/s 153C\nNot Applicable since assessee's case is\nnot a case of notice issued u/s148\n11.\nShe argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories\nand hence even on merits penalty cannot be levied in the instant case.\n12.\nPer contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short\n"Ld.DR"] submitted that as per section

THE ITO (TDS), RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S. OM SAI RAM, ENTERPRISES,, MANDAPETA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Tds Ward-1 Ravulapalem Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.70/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ravulapalem Tds Ward-1 Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2019 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

section 271C of the Act. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-XVIII, Delhi Vs. Bank of Nova Scotia and argued that on similar facts, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the ITAT Delhi and held that having paid the tax u/s 201(1) and the compensatory interest

KOTI NARASIMHA REDDY GUTTIKONDA,GUNTUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VIJAYAWADA

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.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

201 ITR 289 (Del) and followed in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal [1985] 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,SRIKAKULAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and the ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld the order the of the Ld.CIT(A) and held that the payment was in the nature of royalty and payment of brand fee attracts the TDS at 10% u/s 194J of I.T.Act

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,,SRIKAKULAM vs. JCIT TDS RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and the ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld the order the of the Ld.CIT(A) and held that the payment was in the nature of royalty and payment of brand fee attracts the TDS at 10% u/s 194J of I.T.Act

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and the ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld the order the of the Ld.CIT(A) and held that the payment was in the nature of royalty and payment of brand fee attracts the TDS at 10% u/s 194J of I.T.Act

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271(1 )(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of sec 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty u section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271(1 )(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of sec 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty u section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases