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

pricing), Hyderabad on 15.11.2018 after obtaining\napproval from the Appropriate Authorities. Accordingly, the Dy.CIT (Transfer\nPricing officer)-1, Hyderabad passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act\non 29.10.2019 vide Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2019-20/1019531492(1)\nfor the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has entered into the international\ntransactions as follows:\nAssociated\nEnterprises\nNature of\nInternational/Domestic\nTransactions\nAmount\nReceived/Receivable

M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferring incentives to the retail dealers. 5. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. STO the Tribunal held that the essence of a "Contract of Agency" was that the agent did not sell the goods as his own, but sold the same as the property of the principal under his instructions

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)

260) and argued that the issue of right shares and its allotment does not amount to issue of fresh shares at FMV as the value of the shares and the assets are already embedded in the value of original shares. The assessee also relied on the decision of M/s Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs.CIT, wherein Hon’ble supreme court observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

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)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

260 (Bom.). 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of capital dredging on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% considering the capital dredging as “Plant & Machinery”. The Ld. AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee and observed

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ 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 9 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. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ 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 9 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