THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of investment of Rs. 11,10,000/- is not allowable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to make the disallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of investment of Rs. 11,10,000/- is not allowable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to make the disallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of investment of Rs. 11,10,000/- is not allowable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to make the disallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of investment of Rs. 11,10,000/- is not allowable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to make the disallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/- and add it to the total income. This issue is accordingly disposed off.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of the Act in ITA Nos. 329 to 331/VIZ/2017 are similar, and in ITA No. 332/VIZ/2017 except an amount of Rs.4.00 received from Smt. C. Varalakshmi are also similar. The assessee is not able to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, therefore we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of the Act in ITA Nos. 329 to 331/VIZ/2017 are similar, and in ITA No. 332/VIZ/2017 except an amount of Rs.4.00 received from Smt. C. Varalakshmi are also similar. The assessee is not able to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, therefore we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of the Act in ITA Nos. 329 to 331/VIZ/2017 are similar, and in ITA No. 332/VIZ/2017 except an amount of Rs.4.00 received from Smt. C. Varalakshmi are also similar. The assessee is not able to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, therefore we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of the Act in ITA Nos. 329 to 331/VIZ/2017 are similar, and in ITA No. 332/VIZ/2017 except an amount of Rs.4.00 received from Smt. C. Varalakshmi are also similar. The assessee is not able to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, therefore we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT

SRI T. APPA RAO.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DY. CIT,,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of the Act in ITA Nos. 329 to 331/VIZ/2017 are similar, and in ITA No. 332/VIZ/2017 except an amount of Rs.4.00 received from Smt. C. Varalakshmi are also similar. The assessee is not able to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, therefore we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, , 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)

68,08,086/-. 8. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred to Article No. 6.1(b) of the License Agreement which states as follows: “The ownership of all infrastructure assets

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)

68,08,086/-. 8. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred to Article No. 6.1(b) of the License Agreement which states as follows: “The ownership of all infrastructure assets

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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)

68,08,086/-. 8. The Ld. AR argued that as per the License Agreement entered into with Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) by the assessee, the assessee is owner of the asset for a period of 30 years. The Ld AR referred to Article No. 6.1(b) of the License Agreement which states as follows: “The ownership of all infrastructure assets

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n8. Further, Ld. AO also observed difference in commission of sales\namounting to Rs. 10,67,285/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. Further Ld. AO also noticed that assessee has claimed Rs.95,42,395/-\nas handling charges in the Profit & Loss

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

68,744/- towards excess claim of depreciation on railway permanent way and allowing the claim of depreciation on Railway Permanent Way @ 15% as against 10% restricted in the assessment order, ignoring the section

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

68,744/- towards excess claim of depreciation on railway permanent way and allowing the claim of depreciation on Railway Permanent Way @ 15% as against 10% restricted in the assessment order, ignoring the section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

68 Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of provision made towards interest payable on Government

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

68 Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of provision made towards interest payable on Government

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, , VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

68 Officer towards excess claim of depreciation in respect of capital dredging by restricting the rate of depreciation to 10% as against 15% claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of provision made towards interest payable on Government