LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,KAKINADA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

Nature of Amount Margin of Margin of International MAM PLI (Rs.) Taxpayer comparables Transaction Bareboat Charter 43,35,50,310 TNMM OP/OC 28.36 19.22 Rentals Ship Management 23,18,30,814 TNMM OP/OC 28.36 19.22 Services Issue of shares 82,75,970 Other NA NA NA Method 2.1. The taxpayer has carried out economic analysis in search for comparables

KOTARI SRINIVASA RAO, ,UNDRAJAVARAM MANDALAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

nature, we are inclined to admit the additional ground in the interest of justice. 6. At the outset, the Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee raised additional ground saying that issuance of order u/s 263 of the Act was only on the recommendation of the Ld.AO which is not permissible under law and he has also relied on the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

transfer of 1,06,900 shares by the assessee at Rs. 657 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,33,300. 4. On the other hand, the seized scribbling contained entries which the department construed as cash payments to certain persons, including the assessee. The noting in the seized scribblings mentioned, viz. “18/08/2015 – 100 cash Appa

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

transfer pricing study. The assessee has brought on record the number of case laws relied up on, but the revenue did not make out a case for rejection of the commission @ 0.25% to 0.53%, which is held to be reasonable. Neither the A.O. nor DRP brought on record any decision, which is held to be more favourable to the revenue

BRANDIX APPARAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.627/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Brandix Apparel India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Apsez, Pudimadaka Road, Circle-5(1), Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530011. Pan: Aaccb 6569 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kriplani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

transfer price of processing services the Ld. DRP / AO / TPO erred in 4.1. Rejecting the TP documents maintained by the appellant U/s. 92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence. 4.2. Rejecting the comparability analysis carried out by the assessee in TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for processing services. 4.3. Not providing

QUANTUM CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO], Hyderabad after taking necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam for determining the Arm’s Length Price [ALP] u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. After providing an opportunity to the assessee, the Ld. TPO passed the order U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on 31/10/2017 determining the adjustment U/s. 92CA

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

justice. In this case, the assessee is shareholder in M/s Jai Maakali Poultry Products and holding 75,900 shares out of total shares of 1,00,000/- which works out to 76% of the total share holding. There are total seven share holders in the company, all of them are close relatives either legal ascendants or descendants. The assessee

M/S, ACN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVTL LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT (A),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) M/S Acn Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) D.No.9-14-3A, Visakhapatnam Balaji’S Mangalagiri Chambers Vip Road Visakhapatnam [Pan:Aafca7810A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is related to the reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A) on the dates fixed for hearing. This ground is self-explanatory and having decided the case on merits, it is considered not necessary for separate adjudication. 4. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are related to the deduction claimed

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

price. The coordinate bench of the Ahmadabad tribunal, ‘B' Bench in the case of Rahul G. Patel (supra) has considered the (Appana Hari Naga Venkat Rao) issue in respect of unregistered sale agreement vis-a-vis application of proviso to section 50C held as under:- ―8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

justice and equity.”\n5.\nThe only issue emanating from the grounds raised by the assessee is with\nrespect to disallowance of claim made u/s. 80IB of the Act amounting to\nRs.38,75,92,325/-.\n6.\nOn this issue Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"]\nsubmitted that the provisions of section 80IB of the Act states that \"profits\nderived from the business

GRANDHI SRI VENKATA AMARENDRA,ELURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.23 & 24/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of C/O Vaibhav Jewllers Income Tax, Main Road Central Circle-1 Eluru Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Income Tax, Amarendra Central Circle-1 C/O Vaibhav Jewellers Visakhapatnam Main Road Eluru [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21 .08.2018

price paid to local smiths at Rs.166/- per gram. While giving direction to AO, the Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the fact that the assessee is also collecting the making charges from customers and offered the same as income. Hence, considering the facts and merits of the case we are of the considered opinion that adopting the rate of Rs.150

GRANDHI SRI VENKATA AMARENDRA,ELURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.23 & 24/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of C/O Vaibhav Jewllers Income Tax, Main Road Central Circle-1 Eluru Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Grandhi Sri Venkata Income Tax, Amarendra Central Circle-1 C/O Vaibhav Jewellers Visakhapatnam Main Road Eluru [Pan : Abipa7175R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21 .08.2018

price paid to local smiths at Rs.166/- per gram. While giving direction to AO, the Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the fact that the assessee is also collecting the making charges from customers and offered the same as income. Hence, considering the facts and merits of the case we are of the considered opinion that adopting the rate of Rs.150

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)

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities income of the trade cannot

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)

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities income of the trade cannot

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)

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities income of the trade cannot

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)

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities income of the trade cannot

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)

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities income of the trade cannot

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)

price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities income of the trade cannot