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

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

gains. The assessee claimed exemption, stating the land was agricultural and acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, hence exempt under RFCTLARR Act and not a capital asset. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing jurisdictional limitations.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

SURI BABU KROVVIDI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Suri Babu Krovvidi Vs. Income Tax Officer East Godavari Distt. Vijayawada Pan:Aejpk1777P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay To Explain The Cause Of The Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Layman & The Assessee Was Not Having Any Knowledge About The Tax & Procedural Requirement Of Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (A). He Has Further

condonation of delay to explain the cause of the delay which is supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a layman and the assessee was not having any knowledge about the tax and procedural requirement of filing the appeal against the order of the learned CIT (A). He has further Page

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) of Rs. 2,37,03,359/- derived from the year under consideration. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, wherein his total income was determined at Rs. 2,43,33,430/- after allowing set-off of only an amount of Rs. 71,109/- [as against

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay of 23\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeals on merits in the following paragraphs.\n7.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of\nM/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his original return of income for the\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16 on 31.10.2015 admitting a total

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 for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

LATE RAMA KUMARI MUNNA REPRESENTED BY SHRI SHIVAYYA MUNNA HUSBAND LEGAL HEIR,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Capital Gains” (for short, “LTCG”). 4. The legal heir of the assessee (since deceased) has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dated 26.12.2024 before us. 5. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 6. Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA, the learned Authorized

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

condone the delay of 23\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeals on merits in the following paragraphs.\n7.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of\nM/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his original return of income for the\nA.Υ. 2015-16 on 31.10.2015 admitting a total

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

condone the delay and observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as not Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 331 and 332 of 2024 Ponnam Bhavani Vijayawada maintainable. He has now referred to an affidavit of the assessee dated 4/2/2025 filed before the Tribunal explaining the cause of delay. Thus, 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

condone the delay and observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as not Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 331 and 332 of 2024 Ponnam Bhavani Vijayawada maintainable. He has now referred to an affidavit of the assessee dated 4/2/2025 filed before the Tribunal explaining the cause of delay. Thus, the learned

G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts