SRI MANDAVA NARESH,VIJAYAWADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Mandava Naresh Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.14/9, Korukollu Income Tax Kaikalur Vijayawada Charge [Pan : Ahmpn2074J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041046029(1) Dated 19.03.2022 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 With The Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That He Resides In A 2

delay of 69 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving commission from trading in fish, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 21.10.2017, admitting total income of Rs.8,54,750/-. The 3 I.T.A. No.144/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada case has been

TIRUMALASETTY NAGARAJU,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 190/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Tirumalasetty Nagaraju, V. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Guntur. Pan: Aeupn1070R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

revision by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act, who set aside the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act treating the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and passed the order U/s. 263 of the Act on 25/01/2017 wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT directed

ASR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,TANUKU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

condone the delay involved in filing the appeal before us. 16. Apropos the merits of the case, the issue involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., the sustainability of the order passed by the CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad under Section 263 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021. 17. Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, the learned Authorized Representative (for short

SADHIKA GANNI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

revision undertaken by the Ld. Pr. CIT is based on erroneous assumptions and fails to consider the actual facts and circumstances of the case. 3. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is liable to be set aside

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, 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.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

revision authority before the Tribunal. He, therefore pleaded to condone the delay and allow the appeal for hearing. We have heard the Ld.AR and gone through the condonation petition filed. We find that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts

PARASURAM KESARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

revised return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 11/1/2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,89,187/-. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire and in reply the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared from time to time before the Ld. AO and furnished the details and information

VENKATESWARA RAO MADHYAHNAPU,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

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.No.257/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Venkateswara Rao Madhyahnapu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Eluru, Andhra Pradesh 1-4-5, Padamara Veedhi Mr. D. Balaram House Eluru-534001 West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aespm1820Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s 263 of the IT Act. Whereas, the assessee being aggrieved was desirous to file appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT and the appeal was filed on dt:18.06.2024 as against the due date of filing i.e., dt. 23.05.2024, thus causing a delay of 27 days. The reasons and circumstances under which the appeal was filed belatedly are stated here

SHREE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.271/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 26-9-28, Wood Yard Street Ward-1(5) Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanas1911Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an AOP, engaged in the business of supplying manpower services to various organizations, filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 01.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.5,05,655/- under the head ‘income

ASSOCIATION OF RELIEF VOLUNTREERS,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.194/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Association Of Relief Volunteers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. (Exemptions), Pan: Aacta 0213 B Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 533 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 is a charitable organization registered U/s. 12A of the Act filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17 admitting total income of Rs. NIL after claiming