ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench

NIMMAGADDA MURALIDHAR ,NIDADAVOLE vs THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, TANUKU

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

THE NEW LIFE EDUCATION SOCIETY,KAKINADA vs ITO EXEMPTION WD, RAJAHMUNDRY

us a letter dt.29.04.2025, wherein it has sought for liberty to withdraw the captioned appeal. As the assessee society has stated that as the CIT(Exemptions), based on its fresh petition u/s 12AA of the Act, dated 14.12.2024 had granted registration in Form No.10AD, dated 16.04.2025, therefore, the captioned appeal is rendered as superfluous. Accordingly, the assessee society has sought for liberty for withdrawal of captioned appeal.

DEEKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO (HUF),TADEPALLIGUDEM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

PENMATSA PRASAD RAJU,BHIMAVARAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

GANESH TRANSPORTS,VIJAYAWADA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

GANESH TRANSPORTS,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HONBLE (Vice President), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HONBLE (Accountant Member)

BALA VENKATA SHIVA SATYA NAGA RAJU MANTENA,KALLA MANDALAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

THE ABILITY PEOPLE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAHAPATNAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

DANDA NAGENDRA KUMAR,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras from the said affidavit are extracted as under:

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

BALA KRISHNA TRADERS,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

the Ld. Addl / JCIT (A), Agra. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the CPC was justified in restricting the TDS credit by applying Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:

BALA KRISHNA TRADERS,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

the Ld. Addl / JCIT (A), Agra. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the CPC was justified in restricting the TDS credit by applying Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

SREE SHANTINATH MUNISUVARAT SWAMY RAJENDRA SURI JAIN TRUST,TANUKU vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, TANUKU

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

us : “1. That the disallowance of amount made under Section 36(1)(va) is erroneous and bad in law. The learned AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the contributions to EPF/ESI were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), and there was no intention to withhold or misuse such funds. 2. That the bona fide intent of the appellant and practical difficulties should have been considered. The disallowance of amount made does not align with the princip

DHANALAKSHMI TEXTADE INDIA PVT LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)