SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

business premises of the assessee firm on 01.12.2017. During the course of survey, it was observed that the firm had sold/allocated plots in Phase–I and Phase–II of the Sugandhavanam project. Up to the date of survey, the firm had sold a total area of 59,450 sq. yards since March 2014. The average sale price per sq. yard

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Unit–4, Vijayawada, vide his letter dated 04.02.2019, observed that the assessee had made cash deposits

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and filed his return of income

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and filed his return of income

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condone the delay of 106 days in\nfiling the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n6.\nThe brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an\nindividual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and\nfiled his return of income

SRI SURYATEJA CONSTRUCTIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

business of construction of residential flats, filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 17/10/2016 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,13,52,120/-. Initially, the scrutiny assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25/12/2018 and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,23,57,560/- by disallowing

SRI SURYATEJA CONSTRUCTIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

business of construction of residential flats, filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 17/10/2016 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,13,52,120/-. Initially, the scrutiny assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25/12/2018 and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,23,57,560/- by disallowing

SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn and filed its original return of income

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. AASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business

BOLLINA SIVARAMA KRISHNA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2022 & 30/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Bollina Sivarama Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.78-15-5 Ward-2(1) G-1, Rk Towers Rajahmundry Sastry Hospital Road Rajahmundry [Pan : Aiupb4182C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita No.10005/2018-19/Cit(A)/Rjy & 10151/2017-18/Cit(A)/Rjy Dated 12.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 With The Delay Of 735 Days. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.12.2019, As 2

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 19.11.2015, admitting total income of Rs.2,17,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine huge cash deposits more than the turnover. During the course

BALABHADRA VENKATARAJU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS-1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Balabhadra Venkatraju Vs. Income Tax Officer (Hqrs-1) 10-7-5, Rangreezpeta Visakhapatnam Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaahv6735P] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condonation of delay observing as under : “5. From the perusal of the AO’s report and the petition, it is clear that the assessee has ample time to engage another accountant to finalize his accounts and file the return of income within due date as the accountant, who was stated to be sick, was under treatment from

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VARUN OGILI, NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 admitting a total income of Rs. 24,66,800/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

PALLA MADHUSUDANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Palla Madhusudana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Door No.14-6-7, Ramajogipeta Ward-1(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bhrpp0382F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri N.Ravi Babu, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, [Cit(A)]-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10357/2018-19/A3 Cit(A)-6 Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Carrying On Business In The Sale Of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12 On 25.09.2011, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,28,950/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, Accordingly

business in the sale of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2011-12 on 25.09.2011, declaring a total income of Rs.3,28,950/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, 2 ITA No.15/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12 Palla Madhusdana Rao, Visakhapatnam notices u/s 143(2) / 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) were issued

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKRTING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there