SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

20,13,789/- on 21.10.2020 for the A.Y.2020-21. As per the Form-3CD filed for the A.Y. 2020-21 the statutory auditor of the Company has certified that the following payments were made by the assessee company on which tax at source was not deducted as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Amount of Date

KAIGALA SURYACHANDRA RAO,TALLAPUDI vs. IINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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

10 days is that a cause could be decided on merits and\nthe correct tax liability of the assessee could be determined in the interest of\njustice. We therefore find it to be a fit case to condone the delay occurred in filing\nthe appeal before us and also the learned CIT(A), and restore the appeal to the\nfile

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER ININCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee's appeals for the AY 2014-15 to 2017-\n18 are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

section 144(1) of the Act.\nTherefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case\nand the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee\ncould not file the appeal within the stipulated time before the\nLd. CIT(A)-NFAC, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion\nthat it is a fit case to condone

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

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had during the year under consideration made cash deposits of Rs.1 crore in her bank account with HDFC Bank Account No.50100077065070, Branch: Rajamahendravaram on 12.11.2016, which thereafter was transferred to another account held by one Sri Bhaskara Rao on 14.11.2016. 8. On a perusal

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

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144(1) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is a fit case to condone

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144(1) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is a fit case to condone

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144(1) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is a fit case to condone

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144(1) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is a fit case to condone

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

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

condone the delay of 150 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 9. Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate, Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of appeal sought for admission of additional grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as below: “1. Assessment in the case of the appellant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, based out at VSEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, is engaged in the manufacturing and export of wide range of herbal extracts, filed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHARIEF AZIZULLA,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department and the cross objection filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

delay stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case. Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Facts are already illustrated/narrated by the ld. Commissioner in its order, hence, for the sake of brevity not being repeated herein. 5.1. The Revenue Department has raised the following grounds

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:

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Before proceeding

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

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