RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

68 of the Act: Rs. 3,47,97,000/-. 4 Ranar Agrochem Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although, the CIT(A) directed the AO to consider the assessee’s claim that the unreconciled receipt of Rs. 1,35,680/- was accounted for in the next financial year

GVK POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

section 36(1)(iii) the following conditions are required to be satisfied before the assessee can successfully claim deduction in respect of interest paid : (a) The assessee should have borrowed capital; (b) The borrowing of the capital should be for the purpose of the business and (c) Interest should have been paid on the borrowing. The finding

THE VATSAVAI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VATSAVAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

5) cannot be applied in the instant case due to the fact that it does not mention within which period the return should be filed. The Ld.AR further submitted that section 80AC(ii) which was inserted wef 1/4/2018 specifies that “any Deductionis admissible under any provisions of this Chapter under heading “C-deductions in respect of certain incomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM vs. VIJAYANAGARAM WHEAT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KONDAKARAKAM

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.\n7. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed petition\nunder Rule 46A of I.T. Rules r.w.s. 250(4) of the Act for admission of the\nvarious documents as additional evidences in support of additions

SRI RANGA MOTORS,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

5 I.T.A. No.175,179, 174 & 184/Viz/2022 , A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam & Others wherein, it was held that the issue with regard to remittances of belated payments under PF and ESI within the due date of respective Acts are not allowable deduction u/s 36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139

TETALI ANIL KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

5 I.T.A. No.175,179, 174 & 184/Viz/2022 , A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam & Others wherein, it was held that the issue with regard to remittances of belated payments under PF and ESI within the due date of respective Acts are not allowable deduction u/s 36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139

T SRINIVASA RAO&CO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

5 I.T.A. No.175,179, 174 & 184/Viz/2022 , A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam & Others wherein, it was held that the issue with regard to remittances of belated payments under PF and ESI within the due date of respective Acts are not allowable deduction u/s 36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139

EASTERN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

5 I.T.A. No.175,179, 174 & 184/Viz/2022 , A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam & Others wherein, it was held that the issue with regard to remittances of belated payments under PF and ESI within the due date of respective Acts are not allowable deduction u/s 36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139

DASARI BUJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

5 I.T.A. No.20/Viz/2023 , A.Y. 2019-20 Dasari Bujji, Visakhapatnam Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

139(4) for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 28-09-2014 Page No. 17 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A. No. 117/VIZ/2021& C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 M/s. Linton Projects Private Limited& Smt. Poosarla Satyavathi admitting a total income of Rs. 2,56,940/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

139(4) for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 28-09-2014 Page No. 17 I.T.A. No. 227/VIZ/2020 I.T.A. No. 117/VIZ/2021& C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 M/s. Linton Projects Private Limited& Smt. Poosarla Satyavathi admitting a total income of Rs. 2,56,940/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted

SIONC PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was\nenhanced from 30% to 60%, was applicable only to the transactions from 01.4.2017 and\ncould not be applied retrospectively. The Ld.AR submitted that the Tribunal in its\naforesaid orders had specifically observed that the higher rate of tax @60% under\nsection 115BBE

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), 15 Ganesh Kumar Paidi the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause

SATHI MANGAYAMMA,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause

AAYUSH NRI LEPL HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

139(5) of the ITAct. Page No. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 135 & 136/VIZ/2023 Aayush NRI LEPL Healthcare Private Limited 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such disregard. 9. The appellant prays that

AAYUSH NRI LEPL HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

139(5) of the ITAct. Page No. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 135 & 136/VIZ/2023 Aayush NRI LEPL Healthcare Private Limited 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such disregard. 9. The appellant prays that

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

68 are stringent in the case of credits. What the appellant needs to demonstrate is identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. Absence of any one of these elements will render the loan as unexplained and liable to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act. In the instant case, the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

68 are stringent in the case of credits. What the appellant needs to demonstrate is identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. Absence of any one of these elements will render the loan as unexplained and liable to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act. In the instant case, the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors