PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

Assessing Officer is not justified in charging the tax of Rs.8,24,000 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.4,86,160 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

Assessing Officer is not justified in charging the tax of Rs.8,24,000 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.4,86,160 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

condoned. (The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.) In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Before proceeding

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (PRESENTLY MERGED WITH SBI),VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bank are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 382 & 383/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Presently Merged With (Tds), State Bank Of India), Tds Ward-1, South Central Railway Vijayawada. Branch, Near Railway Station, Vijayawada- 520001. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate (For Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

Assessment Years i.e., AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, dated 19/03/2018. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a common order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee-bank for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 382/Viz/2025. The assessee has assailed

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD ( PRESENTLY MERGED WITH SBI),VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bank are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 382 & 383/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Presently Merged With (Tds), State Bank Of India), Tds Ward-1, South Central Railway Vijayawada. Branch, Near Railway Station, Vijayawada- 520001. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate (For Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

Assessment Years i.e., AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, dated 19/03/2018. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a common order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee-bank for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 382/Viz/2025. The assessee has assailed

KANTHETY NAGA RAMA LAKSHMI VARA PRASAD,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.415 & 416/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kanthety Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad V. Ito – Ward – 1 D.No. 25/524-A/5, Ramamani General Merchants Income Tax Office Jagannadhapuram, Parsapet, Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aldpk2888A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kanthety Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad v. ITO – Ward – 1 D.No. 25/524-A/5, Ramamani General Merchants Income Tax Office Jagannadhapuram, Parsapet, Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [PAN: ALDPK2888A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri GVN Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Satyasai Rath

KANTHETY NAGA RAMA LAKSHMI VARA PRASAD,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.415 & 416/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kanthety Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad V. Ito – Ward – 1 D.No. 25/524-A/5, Ramamani General Merchants Income Tax Office Jagannadhapuram, Parsapet, Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aldpk2888A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kanthety Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad v. ITO – Ward – 1 D.No. 25/524-A/5, Ramamani General Merchants Income Tax Office Jagannadhapuram, Parsapet, Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [PAN: ALDPK2888A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri GVN Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Satyasai Rath

VIZAG COMPANYS STEEL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Assessment Year :2018-19) M/s. Vizag Company’s Steel, Vs. ACIT, Plot No. 185, D-Block, Autonagar, Circle-3(1), Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh-530026. PAN: AAGFV 6746 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee by : Sri GVN Hari, AR ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 30/11/2023

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 07 days in filing the Revenue appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. the Andhra Sugars Limited is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and other chemical products and power generation, filed its return of income

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged the business activity by operating a Xerox Shop and e-filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 31/07/2017 declaring a total income

ADABALA MANMOHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Mr. Adabala Manmohan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Vpnao 1959 G Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 296 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased an immovable property in plot no.9, Block No.45, TS No.1031/2, admeasuring 216.88 sq yds, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam from Smt. Davuluri Swapna, non-resident and Sri Kodali Rajendra

DWARAMPUDI KRSS SUBBIREDDY L/R OF DWARAMPUDI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

delay in filing the present appeal, we have no hesitation in condoning the same. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 10. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that Shri Dwarampudi Rama Krishna Reddy (assessee) had expired

KISHORE KUMAR POTLURI,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.409/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Kishore Kumar Potluri Vs. Income Tax Officer Narsannapeta Ward 1 Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Appapp1427K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Block No.9, CTO Office area, West of Old NH Road, Narsannapeta, Srikakulam. This property was sold vide document No.758/2009 dated 06.05.2009 for a total consideration of Rs.79,29,000/-. As return of income was not filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) initiated scrutiny proceedings and issued statutory notice, which was served on the assessee. The AO has granted

VIJAYALAKSHMI VALATHURU,TADEPALLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), FACELESS ASSESSMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay and proceed to dispose of the case on merits.\n3.\nBriefly stated facts of the case are, assessee is an individual filed her\nreturn of income on 26.07.2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 12,78,740/-\nfor the A.Y. 2017-18. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny\nthrough CASS. The Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

Condonation of Delay The assessee ought to have filed the appeals in this case on or before 27.12.2020. However, the appeals were filed by the assessee on 08.01.2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the time limit due to corona pandemic by an order M.A.No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dt.15.07.2020 for the limitation falling during the period between

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PHOZO DIGITAL PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

Condonation of Delay The assessee ought to have filed the appeals in this case on or before 27.12.2020. However, the appeals were filed by the assessee on 08.01.2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the time limit due to corona pandemic by an order M.A.No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dt.15.07.2020 for the limitation falling during the period between