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

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 and opening balances as at the end of the year which were not been provided by the assessee. As per clause (c) of Explanation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer [“Ld. TPO”] issued notices on various dates U/s. 92CA of the Act. In response, the assessee furnished the information as called for along with the T.P. Documentation. The assessee claimed deduction U/s. 10AA of the Act. The domestic transactions reflected in 3CEB/T.P. Study report are as follows: Description In Rs. Purchase of crude Herbal Extracts and oils

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

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.10.2024 determined the income of the assessee-company at Rs. 42,64,55,272/- after making the aforesaid additions/ disallowances viz., (i) Disallowance of amortization of leasehold rights: Rs.23,33,312/-; and (ii) Transfer Pricing

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

42,30,62,082 Arm’s Length Margin determined by 6.11% the TPO Arm’s Length Price = (100 + AALM) x 44,89,11,175 OC Less: Price received 32,00,34,704 Shortfall being the adjustment U/s. 12,88,76,471 92CA of the Act Further, the Ld. AO proposed an addition of Rs. 2,26,671/- on account

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

section 36(1)(iii) the following conditions are required to be satisfied before the assessee can successfully claim deduction in respect of interest paid : (a) The assessee should have borrowed capital; (b) The borrowing of the capital should be for the purpose of the business and (c) Interest should have been paid on the borrowing. The finding of the Tribunal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

42,60,000 shares and transfer took place on 13/12/2000 and 14.12.2000 respectively. The transfer date of scheme of amalgamation was 1st October, 2000 and as on the date, APPM does not hold any shares on 1st October, 2000. When the final accounts for the year ended 31.3.2002 were drawn up, the amalgamation was completed in all respects though numbers

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

42,60,000 shares and transfer took place on 13/12/2000 and 14.12.2000 respectively. The transfer date of scheme of amalgamation was 1st October, 2000 and as on the date, APPM does not hold any shares on 1st October, 2000. When the final accounts for the year ended 31.3.2002 were drawn up, the amalgamation was completed in all respects though numbers

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

42,60,000 shares and transfer took place on 13/12/2000 and 14.12.2000 respectively. The transfer date of scheme of amalgamation was 1st October, 2000 and as on the date, APPM does not hold any shares on 1st October, 2000. When the final accounts for the year ended 31.3.2002 were drawn up, the amalgamation was completed in all respects though numbers

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

42,14,93,000 Ltd Brandix Apparel Ltd Recovery of expenses 93,76,528 Brandix Apparel Ltd Recovery of expenses 66,96,55,903 Brandix Mauritius Holdings Reimbursement of expartite 1,80,50,882 Ltd Brandix Essentials Ltd Reimbursement of expenses 32,64,831 Brandix Apparel Ltd Reimbursement of expenses 37,82,725 Brandix Intimate Apparel Ltd Reimbursement of expenses

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1),, 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 D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

transfer pricing is a legislation seeking the tax-payers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set-out. In short, it is an anti abuse legislation which tells you as to what is the acceptable behaviour but it does not trigger levy of tax in a retrospective manner because no party can be asked

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (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 : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

42,22,750 Delay in delivery of dredge 31.12.2011 21,60,627 Other miscellaneous items Thus, it could be seen that the major amount of Rs.6.42 Crone represent compensation received on account of delay in delivery of dredger and nothing to do with any repair work. Apparently, this amount does not relate to any core activity. The other Items relate

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (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 : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

42,22,750 Delay in delivery of dredge 31.12.2011 21,60,627 Other miscellaneous items Thus, it could be seen that the major amount of Rs.6.42 Crone represent compensation received on account of delay in delivery of dredger and nothing to do with any repair work. Apparently, this amount does not relate to any core activity. The other Items relate

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

THE JAMPETA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

price and, therefore, it is a case of the assessee receiving less amount as a profit.” 10.4 However, in the case of T.T.D. Co-operative Stores Ltd., supra, the counsel for the revenue sought to distinguish the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd, (supra), by stating that there is no such statutory direction to grant rebate in the case

M/S. THE JAMPETA CO- OP URBAN BANK LTD,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE JOIT CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

price and, therefore, it is a case of the assessee receiving less amount as a profit.” 10.4 However, in the case of T.T.D. Co-operative Stores Ltd., supra, the counsel for the revenue sought to distinguish the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd, (supra), by stating that there is no such statutory direction to grant rebate in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

42,259/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Thereafter, on perusal of the balance sheet, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the company has made provision for operational expenses at Rs.63,93,161/- and believed that the same being inadmissible, is chargeable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. SAR CHANDRA ENVIRON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

42,259/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Thereafter, on perusal of the balance sheet, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the company has made provision for operational expenses at Rs.63,93,161/- and believed that the same being inadmissible, is chargeable