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

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

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 2 I.T.A. No.436/Viz/2019, A.Y.2015-16 M/s M.K.Aqua Hatchery, Thondangi 2. All the grounds in this appeal are related to the addition of Rs.2,12,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the CIT(A. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer

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

section 40(ba) of the Act has no application. Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) on this ground is upheld and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. C.O. Nos.89, 90 & 91/Vizag/2017 (2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12): 10. The assessee filed cross objections for all the assessment years. There

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

section 40(ba) of the Act has no application. Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) on this ground is upheld and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. C.O. Nos.89, 90 & 91/Vizag/2017 (2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12): 10. The assessee filed cross objections for all the assessment years. There

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

section 40(ba) of the Act has no application. Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) on this ground is upheld and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. C.O. Nos.89, 90 & 91/Vizag/2017 (2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12): 10. The assessee filed cross objections for all the assessment years. There

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

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

10. The impugned appeal is thus delayed on account of the reasonsmentioned hereinabove which constitute Reasonable cause and the delaycannot be deemed to be wilful nor unreasonable. The delay deserves tobe condoned and the appeal deserves to be admitted and heard in theinterest of justice. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation

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

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of certain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents: (i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition of land from assessee dt. 04.02.2022. (ii). Purchase

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 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

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