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 92CA of the act is contrary to law and thus liable to be quashed 4. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ learned TPO and the learned DRP erred in making an upward adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant's international transactions of INR 20,72

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]

Transfer Pricing officer)-1, Hyderabad passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 29.10.2019 vide Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2019-20/1019531492(1) for the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has entered into the international transactions as follows: Associated Nature of Amount Paid Amount Enterprises International/Domestic Payable Received/Receivable Transactions (Amount in (Amount in INR) INR) Purchase of various

GVK POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,JEGURUPADU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

72,03,389 guarantee commission 3. Interest on share application 67,17,88,665 money and investment in preference shares treated as loans Total 121,95,92,054 3. Considering the Transfer pricing upward adjustments made by the Ld. TPO, the Ld.AO passed a draft assessment order dated 15/4/2021. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections

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

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

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.434/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Pb No. 15, Tanuku Road Veerabhadrapuram Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh - 534102 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaacf2643K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO") and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: Ground No 1: Notional guarantee fee on shareholder's guarantee Making adjustment on the shareholders corporate guarantee provided to the banks for loans availed by the AE, without appreciating the fact that guarantee was provided for the benefit of the 3F Group. Ground No 2: Without

ARKHA SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDARY vs. DCIT-1 , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Arkha Solar Power Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax-1, Elakolanu Village, 4Th Floor, Sri Deepthi Towers, Rangampeta, Rajahmundry, Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533294. Andhra Pradesh-533001. Pan: Aalca 4293K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] by ACIT, Circle-1, Kakinada vide letter dated 16/09/2019 after obtaining approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT-2, Visakhapatnam. The Ld. TPO observed that the assessee entered into the following transactions with the Associated Enterprises [AEs] as per the 3CEB filed by the assessee: International Amount Received / Amount paid / transactions Receivable payable (Amount in INR) (Amount

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

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

transferring\nfunds through bank account which was not disputed by the Ld. AO. He\ntherefore submitted that assessee is not aware of the amount paid as premium by\nthe Kolkata and Delhi based companies whereas the assessee is aware of the\ninvestments made by him by acquiring the shares held by Kolkata and Delhi\nbased companies in M/s. Maa Mahamaya

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax, Producers Company Limited, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aajcs 7398 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos. 18 & 19/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13)

72,145/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, on verification of the submissions, the Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee company 5 has debited an amount of Rs. 146,06,81,638/- to the P & L Account towards withheld price against the procurement of milk and kept the said amount as a liability in the balance sheet

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax, Producers Company Limited, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aajcs 7398 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos. 18 & 19/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13)

72,145/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, on verification of the submissions, the Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee company 5 has debited an amount of Rs. 146,06,81,638/- to the P & L Account towards withheld price against the procurement of milk and kept the said amount as a liability in the balance sheet

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

transferring\nfunds through bank account which was not disputed by the Ld. AO. He\ntherefore submitted that assessee is not aware of the amount paid as premium by\nthe Kolkata and Delhi based companies whereas the assessee is aware of the\ninvestments made by him by acquiring the shares held by Kolkata and Delhi\nbased companies in M/s. Maa Mahamaya

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)

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 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

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)

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