ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 801 B(10) only in the year of completion of the project, especially so, for an assessee not following project completion method for accounting its income. If otherwise interpreted, it would be equivalent to forcing an assessee to follow a particular method of accounting, which would never have been the intention of legislation. Intention would only have been that

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 801 B(10) only in the year of completion of the project, especially so, for an assessee not following project completion method for accounting its income. If otherwise interpreted, it would be equivalent to forcing an assessee to follow a particular method of accounting, which would never have been the intention of legislation. Intention would only have been that

M/S. vs. R INFOTECH ,,VISAKHAPATNAMVS.THE ITO ,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act originally on 30.8.2010 accepting the income returned. The assessee filed return of income admitting total income of ` 2,50,220/- on 29.8.2008. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 29.2.2012 for verification

M/S. vs. R INFOTECH ,,VISAKHAPATNAMVS.THE ITO ,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act originally on 30.8.2010 accepting the income returned. The assessee filed return of income admitting total income of ` 2,50,220/- on 29.8.2008. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 29.2.2012 for verification

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

10 I.T.A.No.639/VIZ/2025 Arimilli Rama Krishna section 143(2) of the Act was mandatorily required to be issued by the AO within the time period prescribed under the statute for framing the reassessment? 14. We shall now deal with the abovementioned core issue involved in the present appeal, i.e., whether the AO, in response to the return of income filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ATTILI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito (Exemptions), Vs. M/S. Agricultural Market Rajahmundry. Committee, D.No. 2-166, Market Road, Attili, West Godavari District. Pan No. Aaala 0351 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.103/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 340/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2005-06) M/S. Agricultural Market Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Committee, D.No. 2-166, Rajahmundry. Market Road, Attili, West Godavari District. Pan No. Aaala 0351 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

108 days in cross objection. In the appeal, revenue filed an application for condonation of delay. We have gone through the application and find that there is a sufficient cause for non-filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and is admitted for hearing. Insofar as cross objection is concerned, no condonation application