THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

2 Purchase of finished goods for 1,90,72,758 TMMM distribution 3 Sale of manufactured finished 4,03,45,480 TMMM goods 4 Purchase of equipment’s 17,88,971 TMMM 5 Royalty payments under technical 1,75,00,000 TMMM know-how agreement 6 Reimbursement of translation 12,79,586 TMMM charges Total

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

2 Purchase of finished goods for 1,90,72,758 TMMM distribution 3 Sale of manufactured finished 4,03,45,480 TMMM goods 4 Purchase of equipment’s 17,88,971 TMMM 5 Royalty payments under technical 1,75,00,000 TMMM know-how agreement 6 Reimbursement of translation 12,79,586 TMMM charges Total

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)

45,74,782 (A-B) on account of non subscription of the shares by other share holders The Ld.Pr.CIT rejected the contention of the assessee observing that the assessee has taken fair market value of the shares after the allotment and arrived at the net gain on account of extra shares allotted to the assessee, instead of taking the fair

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

45,910/-. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of section 50C are extracted as under : Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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)

45,55,948 crystallized during the impugned assessment year and hence it is not a prior period expenditure. (c) Alternatively the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO having chosen to consider for taxation prior period income of Rs. 2,83,04,075/- is not justified in disallowing prior period expenses

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

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price (Comparables and Adjustments/Adjustments - Interest) - Assessment year 2011-12 - TPO noted that there was delay in receipt of payment from AE and observed that estimate period of 30 days would be considered as normal period for inter-company sales and services and any delay beyond

TBR INFRA PVT LTD,ALAMPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

45,866/- towards Coin\nCommission. Ld. AO observed that assessee has not deducted tax at source as\nprescribed under section 194H of the Act and thereby invoked provisions of\nsection 40(a)(ia) of the Act while disallowing 30% of the gross amount\ncommission amounting to Rs.3,43,759/-. Further, Ld. AO also disallowed a\nsum of Rs.23

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

price and easy saleability. Even then, the assessee had kept the plots for more than 5 years and no prudent business person will keep asset idle without optimising the turnover. Merely because the plots were sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the sale of plots was taxable as profit arising from the adventure