ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench
4,019 judgments
INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-2(1), GVMC (PART), VISAKHAPATNAM vs SATHISH KUMAR ATTADA, GVMC (PART), VISAKHAPATNAM
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)
DIVYASRI REALTERS,HYDERABAD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA
the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the Learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the paper book Pages No. 42 and 43 wherein the assessee has filed a Notarized Affidavit explaining the reasons that were prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. He therefore pleaded that since there is a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, the delay of 366 days may be condo
DR KONDABOLU BASAVAPUNAIAH & DR LAKSHMI PRASAD TRUST,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR
SRINIVASARAO GANTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM
SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA
SUNIL KUMAR PEJJAI,CHILAKALURIPETA vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
KANDIPALLI APPALA RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM
RAMESH POTNURU,SRIKAKULAM vs ITO, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM
this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had originally filed the appeal before the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal on 27.07.2024, which was well within the statutory limitation period. However, the Cochin Bench, vide its order in ITA No.661/Coch/2024 dated 29.01.2025, dismissed the appeal holding that jurisdiction did not lie with that
SUBBARAO JALADI,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR
SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
NAKKA KASIVISWESWARA RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), RAJAHMUNDRY
SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
RAMU MUSUNURI,RANGAPURAM LINGAPALEM MANDAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ELURU
SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
THE PAYAKARAOPETA WOMENS MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP THRIFT CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAYAKARAOPETA vs ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM
the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative filed a petition along with an affidavit stating that due to inadvertent oversight in tracking the date, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly on 02nd June, 2025 instead of 31st May, 2025 resulting in a delay of 02 days. It was further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to human error and therefore pleaded that the delay of 02 days may be condon
KANISHKA F&B,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA
the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from the affidavit are extracted herein below:
SUJAN VIKAS MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PORANKI, KRISHNA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4) , VIJAYAWADA
SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)
THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LTD.,,ELURU vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU
THE ELURU COOPERATIVE HOUSE MORTGAGE SOCIETY LIMITED,ELURU vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, ELURU
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA
the Tribunal.
