3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TRANSFER PRICING MATTER: 1. Notional Guarantee fee on shareholders guarantee a. Making adjustment on the shareholders corporate guarantee is not covered under the loans availed by the AE, without appreciating the fact that the guarantee was provided for the benefit of the 3F Group. b. Not appreciating that the shareholder corporate guarantee is not covered under definition of international transaction

LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,KAKINADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.3-16-193/1, Sri Vidya Colony Circle-1 Suryarao Peta, Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aabcl9766C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao/Tpo/Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru(Drp In Short) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & The Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 For The A.Y.2012-13. 2 Ita No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021, A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Lewek Altair Shipping Private Ltd., Kakinada

transfer pricing issue. Fresh approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT-2, Visakhapatnam and the case was referred to TPO, Hyderabad for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in conformity with the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. In the instant case, the assessee has paid bareboat rentals of Rs.43,35,50,310/- to Lewek Shipping Pte Ltd., Singapore and Ship

LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,KAKINADA vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.3-16-193/1, Sri Vidya Colony Circle-1 Suryarao Peta, Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aabcl9766C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao/Tpo/Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru(Drp In Short) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & The Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 For The A.Y.2012-13. 2 Ita No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021, A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Lewek Altair Shipping Private Ltd., Kakinada

transfer pricing issue. Fresh approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT-2, Visakhapatnam and the case was referred to TPO, Hyderabad for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in conformity with the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. In the instant case, the assessee has paid bareboat rentals of Rs.43,35,50,310/- to Lewek Shipping Pte Ltd., Singapore and Ship

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad for computation of Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AEs] outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of 3F Singapore and 3F Ghana

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

price of the\nstocks are artificially increased exponentially. Ld. AO after examining the\nSEBI reports which has levied penalty on the brokers involved in the trading\nobserved that these were nothing but accommodation entries. He also\n\nPage No. 5\n\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\n\nreferred

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

price of the\nstocks are artificially increased exponentially. Ld. AO after examining the\nSEBI reports which has levied penalty on the brokers involved in the trading\nobserved that these were nothing but accommodation entries. He also\nPage No. 5\nI.T (SS). A.No.10/VIZ/2025&I.T.A.No.136/VIZ/2025\nAshok Kumar Agrawal\nΙ.Τ.Α.No.150/VIZ/2025\nSantosh Agrawal\nreferred to the statements recorded

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.434/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Pb No. 15, Tanuku Road Veerabhadrapuram Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh - 534102 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaacf2643K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO") and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: Ground No 1: Notional guarantee fee on shareholder's guarantee Making adjustment on the shareholders corporate guarantee provided to the banks for loans availed by the AE, without appreciating the fact that guarantee was provided for the benefit of the 3F Group. Ground No 2: Without

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Price [ALP] of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AEs] outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of its subsidiaries. The Ld. TPO also observed that the assessee has reported the same in Form

ARKHA SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDARY vs. DCIT-1 , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Arkha Solar Power Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax-1, Elakolanu Village, 4Th Floor, Sri Deepthi Towers, Rangampeta, Rajahmundry, Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533294. Andhra Pradesh-533001. Pan: Aalca 4293K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] by ACIT, Circle-1, Kakinada vide letter dated 16/09/2019 after obtaining approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT-2, Visakhapatnam. The Ld. TPO observed that the assessee entered into the following transactions with the Associated Enterprises [AEs] as per the 3CEB filed by the assessee: International Amount Received / Amount paid / transactions Receivable payable (Amount in INR) (Amount

VIJAPURAPU SUDHA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

price and he accepted the consideration as paid by the buyer. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee did not take any advance in cash before the registration and immediately on receipt of the remaining sale consideration in cash, under unavoidable circumstances, the 5 assessee deposited the same in his bank account which clearly shows the genuineness

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed

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)

penalty proceedings for excess claim of deduction U/s. 43B of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that this expenditure pertains to the AY 2009-10 whereas the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam has considered it as an expenditure pertaining to the AY 2007-08 and earlier years. Since the order of passed