TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Transfer Pricing adjustment as per the order passed by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.10.2023: Rs.21,90,56,110/-. 8. The assessee-company aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30.10.2024, has carried the matter in appeal before

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, 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.(Tp).A. No.44/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel Income Tax, City Private Limited Sez, Circle-5(1), 2Nd Floor, Direct Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Taxes Building, Mvp Double Visakhapatnam – 530 011. Road, Visakhapatnam, Pan: Aaaco 9452 H Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kirpalani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

26,671/- on account of inadmissible depreciation and Rs. 3,477/- under income from other sources. The Ld. TPO has not disputed the TNMM Method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The Ld. TPO has also accepted the 15 comparable companies selected by the assessee. The Ld. TPO computed the Arithmetic Mean of the comparable companies based on the independent

SNF (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Income Tax Office Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A]

26,82,854/- vide revised return dated Page. No 2 I.T.A.Nos.204, 209 & 210/VIZ/2025 M/s. SNF (India) Private Limited 29.03.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) was issued on 23.08.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

26,82,854/- vide revised return dated\nPage. No 2\n29.03.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under\nCASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act')\nwas issued on 23.08.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act\nwas issued on 08.11.2019. It was observed from the Form-3CEB report

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged / uncharged as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCkinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2018) (96 taxmann.com 237) (Del) on which SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 102 taxmann.com 439 (SC) (2019). Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged / uncharged as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCkinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2018) (96 taxmann.com 237) (Del) on which SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 102 taxmann.com 439 (SC) (2019). Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged / uncharged as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MCkinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2018) (96 taxmann.com 237) (Del) on which SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 102 taxmann.com 439 (SC) (2019). Page

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

26,82,854/- vide revised return dated\nPage. No 2\n29.03.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under\nCASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act')\nwas issued on 23.08.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act\nwas issued on 08.11.2019. It was observed from the Form-3CEB report

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

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

26,020/-. Thereafter, the return was summarily processed by the CPC, Bengaluru and an order U/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 1/11/2017. Subsequently, the assessee filed his revised return of income on 1/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,81,290/- which includes capital gains of Rs. 34,65,000/- on sale of vacant site admeasuring

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

26,63,420/-, returned by the Appellant, under\nthe facts and circumstances of the case.\n3.\nWhether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing\nthe claim of the Appellant made under section 80IB of the Act, and making\nan addition of Rs. 38,75,92,325/-, to the total income, under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

transferring it to the assessee company as investment in share capital. He therefore stated that the sources remained unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find from the summary of sworn statements

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

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

transferring it to the assessee company as investment in share capital. He therefore stated that the sources remained unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find from the summary of sworn statements

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

26,00,000/- during the AY 2012-13 before the finalization of audit of accounts, the balance of Rs. 2,74,00,000/- was written off in the books of account and claimed as expenditure. He therefore submitted that it is revenue neutral as the same has to be allowed during the subsequent assessment year. Further, the Accounting Standards mandate

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)

transferred to the lessee. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the mercantile system of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee recognizing the rent which was received on upfront for a period of 30 years over the lease period is in accordance with the accounting policy and also complying with the provisions of section

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)

transferred to the lessee. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the mercantile system of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee recognizing the rent which was received on upfront for a period of 30 years over the lease period is in accordance with the accounting policy and also complying with the provisions of section

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)

transferred to the lessee. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the mercantile system of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee recognizing the rent which was received on upfront for a period of 30 years over the lease period is in accordance with the accounting policy and also complying with the provisions of section

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)

transferred to the lessee. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the mercantile system of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee recognizing the rent which was received on upfront for a period of 30 years over the lease period is in accordance with the accounting policy and also complying with the provisions of section