ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

23,06,700/- @ Rs.15,900 per sq.yd. AO noticed that as per the agreement dated 12.11.2007, the assessee is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.15,11,45,400/- where as Shri K.V.V.Prasad is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,11,61,300. It was further noticed by the AO that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.11

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

23,06,700/- @ Rs.15,900 per sq.yd. AO noticed that as per the agreement dated 12.11.2007, the assessee is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.15,11,45,400/- where as Shri K.V.V.Prasad is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,11,61,300. It was further noticed by the AO that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.11

OCEAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blei.T. (T.P.) A. No. 150/Viz/2016 (Asst. Year : 2011-12) M/S. Teejay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-5(1), (Formerly Known As Ocean Visakhapatnam. India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Ltd. Sez, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaco 9452 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

1), Visakhapatnam ('learned Assessing Officer' or 'learned AO') and Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) ('learned Transfer Pricing Officer' or 'learned TPO') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

C) No. 769 of 2017. The\nHon'ble High Court held that 'The Tribunal in the case Of Vijay Proteins\nLtd (Supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the AO\nto restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the\npurchases in 25% of the total purchases. The said decision was confirmed

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 91[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 91[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 91[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 91[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 91[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 91[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner

MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing document that the assessee has given adavances to the AE, Greatwater Software Inc towards patient point project(PPK) for an amount of Rs.18,44,00,935/- but not charged any interest on the advances given to the AE. The TPO also observed that the similar advance was given in the immediately preceding assessment year also. Thus, the opening

M/S. MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing document that the assessee has given adavances to the AE, Greatwater Software Inc towards patient point project(PPK) for an amount of Rs.18,44,00,935/- but not charged any interest on the advances given to the AE. The TPO also observed that the similar advance was given in the immediately preceding assessment year also. Thus, the opening

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. M/S CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit, Circle-1(1) Vs. M/S Ccl Products (India) Guntur Pvt. Ltd. Duggirala Post & Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aaacc9552G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Ramesh Babu, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .04.2019

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for determination of Arms Length Price(ALP). The TPO made the study of transfer pricing document and found that an amount of Rs.10,21,81,783/- was due from Associated Enterprises (AEs) at the end of the year. The TPO requested for breakup and reconciliation of the receivables outstanding

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

1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate to the consumers under statutory compulsion. It is as if he received only from the consumers the original amount minus the amount he returned to them. In substance, there cannot be any difference between a business man collecting from his constituents

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

1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate to the consumers under statutory compulsion. It is as if he received only from the consumers the original amount minus the amount he returned to them. In substance, there cannot be any difference between a business man collecting from his constituents

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

1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate to the consumers under statutory compulsion. It is as if he received only from the consumers the original amount minus the amount he returned to them. In substance, there cannot be any difference between a business man collecting from his constituents

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

1) of the IT Act cannot obviously include the amounts returned by him by way of rebate to the consumers under statutory compulsion. It is as if he received only from the consumers the original amount minus the amount he returned to them. In substance, there cannot be any difference between a business man collecting from his constituents

GVR POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

transfer pricing officer found GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Jegurupadu that the assessee has receivables of Rs.7,32,97,465/- as at the end of the year. The TPO requested the assessee to submit the details of raising the invoice and subsequent receipt of the amount and also called for an explanation as to why notional interest should not be charged