ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

1,06,27,000/- outstanding in the books of accounts at the end of the year as unexplained sum under section 68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. AO, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

1,06,27,000/- outstanding in the books of accounts at the end of the year as unexplained sum under section 68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263

ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

1,06,27,000/- outstanding in the books of accounts at the end of the year as unexplained sum under section 68 of the Act while passing the order under section 143(3)r.w.s. 263

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 ITR 658)(SC), as the same is merely a dismissal, where it was held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. (vi) The CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT, dated

THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

THE ACIT, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT.,, 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)

263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

THE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT CO OP MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ,ELURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe West Godavari District Co-Op. Marketing Society Ltd., Eluru, 25-55, Opposite To Fire Station N.R. Pet Eluru - 534006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaaat7717Q V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Visakhapatnam - 1 ……………… Respondent

263 of the Act, the learned PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings on the basis that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,06,79,044 under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. However, on the verification of the schedule on interest income, 3 the learned PCIT noted that the assessee received interest income of Rs. 68

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

section 263 of the Act,1961. XX XXX XX 10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned order as well as the facts and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, it is clear the Apex Court in the case of V.S.M.R. Jagdadishchandran (supra) has dismissed the appeal in the facts of the said

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:

section 194J of the Act wherein it was stated that “professional services include engineering services”. 6. Countering the argument of the Ld. DR, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the assessee is simply providing maintenance services of Bulk Material Handling System (in short “BMHS”) shall not constitute „professional services‟. The Ld. AR further referred to the Tender Document

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kanchan Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Phho Baugh Road Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Ambati Satram Junction Visakhapatnam – 530020 Khadarnagar, Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abepl4375Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. So far as cash deposits of Rs.10,50,000/- is concerned, Ld.Pr.CIT directed the Ld. AO to examine and pass fresh order in accordance with law. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: - Page No. 2 I.T.A. No.265/VIZ/2025 Kanchan Lalwani “1. The order passed