THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

86,11,160/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, a fresh notice under section 142(1) dated 22.06.2015 was issued and served on the assessee due to change in the incumbent. In response, assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

86,11,160/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, a fresh notice under section 142(1) dated 22.06.2015 was issued and served on the assessee due to change in the incumbent. In response, assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ALFA ELECTRONIC SERVICES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 50, 51 & 53/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. M/S. Alfa Electronic Services (India) Prathyakshakar Bhavan, Sector – 8 Private Limited Mvp Double Road, 49-22-5, Sri Sai Mansions Visakhapatnam – 530017 Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aahca3583E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

86,11,160/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, a fresh notice under section 142(1) dated 22.06.2015 was issued and served on the assessee due to change in the incumbent. In response, assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIKAS KUMAR CHHAJER, VIZIANAGARAM

Bench: Us:

68 of the Act. 9. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) had vacated the impugned addition for more than one reason, viz., (i). that the statements of the third parties, viz. M/s. Jain LLP, Delhi, and M/s. JM Jain LLP, Delhi (along with the scanned copies of the excel sheets), which had formed the basis for making the impugned addition

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

86,356/- is in respect of gratuity payment, which has already been paid to the employees and therefore it cannot be taxed and submitted that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 21. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities

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

86,356/- is in respect of gratuity payment, which has already been paid to the employees and therefore it cannot be taxed and submitted that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 21. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities

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

86,356/- is in respect of gratuity payment, which has already been paid to the employees and therefore it cannot be taxed and submitted that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 21. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities

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

86,356/- is in respect of gratuity payment, which has already been paid to the employees and therefore it cannot be taxed and submitted that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 21. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities

KANISHKA F&B,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from the affidavit are extracted herein below:

section 68 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 3,86,95,754/- U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and determined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as income u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, after considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MANCHUKONDAS SHAYAM ZAVERI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.629/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Manchukondas Income Tax Shyam Zaveri Central Circle-1 D.No.10-1-27, Visakhapatnam Opp:Vemana Mandir Gold Plaza, Sampath Vinayak Temple Road Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abafm3933F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.26/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.629/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S Manchukondas Shyam Zaveri Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.10-1-27, Income Tax Opp:Vemana Mandir Central Circle-1 Gold Plaza, Sampath Vinayak Temple Visakhapatnam Road, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abafm3933F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Smt Suman Malik, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

68 of the Act. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) observed that there was deficit stock of gold ornaments to the extent of Rs.2324.906 grams. The explanation of the assessee with regard to the issue of gold ornaments to Sampath Assaying and Hallmarking Private Limited

A.TIRUPATHI RAYUDU(HUF),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) amounting to Rs. 3,92,242/-.” Additional Ground of Appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the addition

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) amounting to Rs. 3,92,242/-.” Additional Ground of Appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the addition

LATE AT RAYUDU INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE BY AVINASH ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the advance by ATR Warehousing Private Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) amounting to Rs. 3,92,242/-.” Additional Ground of Appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the addition

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

86,400/- as unexplained investment in pawn broking business. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT, where the order passed by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Act and also imposed penalty of ₹ 68

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)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public

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)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public

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)

section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024: (g) “small enterprise” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006).” 87. From the bare reading of the above provisions and Explanation to Section 43B, the terms “public