THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. CHATANYA GODAVARI,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

section 36(1)(viia). We do agree that the bank si bound to follow the RBI guidelines. But the deduction available has to be as per the provisions of the Act only. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) disallowing the deduction in respect of provision made for standard assets.” 7. Since the facts are identical, respectfully

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. CHATANYA GODAVARI,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

section 36(1)(viia). We do agree that the bank si bound to follow the RBI guidelines. But the deduction available has to be as per the provisions of the Act only. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) disallowing the deduction in respect of provision made for standard assets.” 7. Since the facts are identical, respectfully

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset till the date on which the asset shall put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. He argued that since the asset is itself bogus in nature, interest paid on the Term Loan

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset till the date on which the asset shall put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. He argued that since the asset is itself bogus in nature, interest paid on the Term Loan

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset till the date on which the asset shall put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. He argued that since the asset is itself bogus in nature, interest paid on the Term Loan

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset till the date on which the asset shall put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. He argued that since the asset is itself bogus in nature, interest paid on the Term Loan

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of asset till the date on which the asset shall put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. He argued that since the asset is itself bogus in nature, interest paid on the Term Loan

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]

36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. So far as section 143(1) is concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that

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

36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. So far as section 143(1) is concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that

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

36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. So far as section 143(1) is concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that

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

36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. So far as section 143(1) is concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that

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

36, even though, it was remitted before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. So far as section 143(1) is concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that

PEPAKAYALA VEERABHADRARAO,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Pepakayala Veerabhadrarao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.68-10-20/B, Vidyut Nagar Ward-2 Kakinada Kakinada East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Akxpp4235H] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied upon certain judicial precedents which are in favour of the revenue, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192, wherein

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details

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

section 142(1) of the same date, the addition of Rs. 60,66,867/- was made by disallowing 50% of the other expenses shown by the assessee – (The Aryapuram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd.) bank at Col. No. 36 of Part A- P & L a/c of ITR-Vs. Which was electronically uploaded. The assessee bank furnished the details

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)

36(1)(va), it becomes a permanent disallowance and is against the principles of natural justice. 6. The CIT(A) failed in appreciating the fact that the addition made is a disputable addition and such additions cannot be made in the intimation u/s 143(1) and hence the additions are to be deleted as per the provsions

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High