ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 29/11/2019 5 Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor vs. ITO to furnish a copy of the letter wherein the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam had condoned the delay

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)

Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding in light of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and noticed that, the reasons given by the assessee do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the huge delay

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)

Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding in light of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and noticed that, the reasons given by the assessee do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the huge delay

OMMI SANDEEP,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

delay of 24 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to the assessee's medical condition. The core issue is the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) when no return of income was filed under Section 139(1

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

section 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee - Whether Since there was a gross delay of 202 days in preferring SLP against said order and explanation offered for said delay was also not satisfactory and neither was it sufficient in law to condone

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

section 144 of the Act. 11. Be that as it may, I am of firm conviction that, as the assessee had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation regarding the inordinate delay of 218 days involved in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter had rightly dismissed the same on the ground of limitation itself

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

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 for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19- 10-2015, declaring 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 for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19- 10-2015, declaring income

KOSURU KRISHNAVENI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1) dated 05.09.2024 for the A.Y.2016-17 arising out of the order Kosuru Krishnaveni passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 23.02.2024. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated

ANAND KUMAR ADARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , VISAKHAPATNAM

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.232/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Anand Kumar Adari, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax (Osd), Pan: Adlpa 1847 P Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2010-11. 2 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a huge delay of 775 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the assessee filed a petition along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has explained

SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS CO LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.233/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Producers Co. Ltd, Income Tax (Osd), Visakhapatnam. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aajcs 7398 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2010-11. 2 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a huge delay of 775 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the assessee filed a petition along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has explained

NO H 1043 BHUJABALAPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The appellant/assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee has not furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on or before the due date

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)

condone the delay of 86 Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are, assessee has been granted Registration under section 12A of sub-section (1

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)

condone the delay of 86 Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are, assessee has been granted Registration under section 12A of sub-section (1