THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2 Guntur in ITA No.56/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2011-12 dated 29.11.2018, CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.188/2017-18,ACIT,C-1-Rjy/CIT(A)-11/Hyd and CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad Appeal No.189/2017-18/ACIT

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2 Guntur in ITA No.56/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2011-12 dated 29.11.2018, CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.188/2017-18,ACIT,C-1-Rjy/CIT(A)-11/Hyd and CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad Appeal No.189/2017-18/ACIT

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:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to an affidavit of the assessee, dated 25.07.2025 along with a copy of medical prescription, dated 01.07.2020, wherein it was deposed by him that the assessee, during the relevant period, i.e., in the last week of January, 2020, was suffering with jaundice and was advised to take bed rest

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

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

forward loss was disallowed to the extent of Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota Rs.2,36,32,250/- in the intimation issued by the A.O/CPC under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2020. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as the assessee, despite having been offered seven opportunities, had failed

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

Carrying her contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee learnt about the dismissal of his appeal only on 18.01.2025, when he was called upon by the Income Tax Officer for depositing the outstanding demand based on the assessment framed in his case. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on learning about the fact that his appeal

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

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

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society is operating in a remote area, i.e., Village Saluru, District: the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society had, for bonafide reasons, failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, therefore, it was visited with an ex parte

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

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

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society is operating in a remote area, i.e., Village Saluru, District: the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society had, for bonafide reasons, failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, therefore, it was visited with an ex parte

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

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

Bench: Us:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that it was only when as on 14.02.2020, the Managing Partner of the assessee firm had received a phone call from the Income- tax Department wherein he was called upon to pay the outstanding liability of Rs.19.64 lacs (approx.) that he had learnt about the framing of the assessment in the case

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 7,21,890/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny of assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 8. During the course of assessment

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

loss of time, filed the present appeal on 11.07.2025,\nwhich, by the time involved a delay of 161 days. The Ld.AR submitted that as the delay\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.No.428/VIZ/2025\nSriLakshmi Devireddy-\nin filing the present appeal had crept in not because of any callous or lackadaisical\napproach of the assessee but for the aforesaid bonafide reasons, therefore

THE CHINAOGIRALA PACS LTD,CHINAOGIRALA VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GUDIVADA, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.296/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinaogirala Village, Ward-1, Vuyyuru Mandal, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521301. Andha Pradesh-521245. Pan: Aacat 8188 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal though the delay was due to the circumstances beyond the control and with no comments on the grounds of appeal. The Andhra Pradesh high court held in the case of Pinjari Khasim v Chanda Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 698, decided on 28-03-2023 that “…. ordinarily the litigation should not be terminated

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

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TETALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carried out by the appellant, the President of the Society has been advised to get second opinion, with regard to impact of rejection. In view of the above, the President of the Society has consulted another consultant and being advised to pursue the rejection application by filing an appeal, as other wise it may create problems thereafter

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TANAKU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

carried out by the appellant, the President of the Society has been advised to get second opinion, with regard to impact of rejection. In view of the above, the President of the Society has consulted another consultant and being advised to pursue the rejection application by filing an appeal, as other wise it may create problems thereafter

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Carrying his contention further, the Ld.AR\nsubmitted that the Pr. CIT, Vijayawada, dated 12.04.2021, had thereafter issued\nForm No. 5, dated 12.04.2021, based on the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act,\n2020 declaration filed by the assessee for the A.Y.2011-12.\n10.\nShri C Subrahmanyam, Ld.AR submitted that, the A.O, i.e, ACIT-Circle-\n2(1), Vijayawada, observing that the capital grains

KAKATIYA SANGHAM,TANUKU vs. INCPME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kakatiya Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-348 Ward-1 Bypass Road (Chivatam) Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaatk7209H] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) Dated 25.05.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 23.09.2014 With The Delay Of 183 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Was Passed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee society was registered u/s 12A of the Act w.e.f.26.05.2003, The assessee receives voluntary contributions and fee for maintaining marriage halls. For the A.Y.2012- 13, the assessee filed it’s return of income, declaring Nil income, against which, the AO completed

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Carrying his contention further, the Ld.AR\nsubmitted that the Pr. CIT, Vijayawada, dated 12.04.2021, had thereafter issued\nForm No. 5, dated 12.04.2021, based on the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act,\n2020 declaration filed by the assessee for the A.Y.2011-12.\n10.\nShri C Subrahmanyam, Ld.AR submitted that, the A.O, i.e, ACIT-Circle-\n2(1), Vijayawada, observing that the capital grains

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:

carried the matter in appeal before us. 5 Kosanam Rama Rao, Guntur. 7. Ms. Venkata Susheela, Advocate, the learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) of the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 15 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that