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

10(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to the provisions of section 96 of REFTLAR Act, 2013. 3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the land in question which was subjected to compulsory acquisition under National Highways Act, 1956 was an agricultural land as per the revenue records and hence the subject transfer

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

37 CCH 94 (Hyd-Trib.)] the case cited (supra):- “16. The meaning of “date of completion” has been given in Explanation (ii) to clause (a) to section 80IB(10). Date of completion of construction would mean date on which completion certificate in respect of housing project was issued by the local authority. To grant deduction u/s. 80IB(10

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

37 CCH 94 (Hyd-Trib.)] the case cited (supra):- “16. The meaning of “date of completion” has been given in Explanation (ii) to clause (a) to section 80IB(10). Date of completion of construction would mean date on which completion certificate in respect of housing project was issued by the local authority. To grant deduction u/s. 80IB(10

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

37 CCH 94 (Hyd-Trib.)] the case cited (supra):- “16. The meaning of “date of completion” has been given in Explanation (ii) to clause (a) to section 80IB(10). Date of completion of construction would mean date on which completion certificate in respect of housing project was issued by the local authority. To grant deduction u/s. 80IB(10

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

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

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

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

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

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

37 days, but not filed condonation petition for condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine. 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.10380/2016-17/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 and 10151/2017- 18/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 dated

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

37 days, but not filed condonation petition for condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine. 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.10380/2016-17/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 and 10151/2017- 18/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 dated

THE CHINAOGIRALA PACS LTD,CHINAOGIRALA VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GUDIVADA, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.296/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinaogirala Village, Ward-1, Vuyyuru Mandal, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521301. Andha Pradesh-521245. Pan: Aacat 8188 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal though the delay was due to the circumstances beyond the control and with no comments on the grounds of appeal. The Andhra Pradesh high court held in the case of Pinjari Khasim v Chanda Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 698, decided on 28-03-2023 that “…. ordinarily the litigation should not be terminated

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

37,03,359/- claimed by the assessee]. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for set-off of carry forward loss was disallowed to the extent of Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota Rs.2,36,32,250/- in the intimation issued by the A.O/CPC under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2020. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

VINTA LABORATORIES PVT LTD,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.467/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Vs. Dcit – Circle – 3(1) Vinta Laboratories Private Limited Plot No. 23-D, Apsez- De-Notified Area 1St Floor, Infinity Towers Apiic Rambilli Mandal D.No. 50-92-34/1/1 Visakhapatnam – 531011 Sankarmatham Road Andhra Pradesh Resapuvanipalem, Shanthipuram Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aarcs7889P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Agrawal, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of one (1) day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, a company, filed its return of income for A.Y.2021–22 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Tulasi Seeds Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Standard House, Beside Sbi Door No. 6-4-6, Tulasi House Nagarampalem, Guntur – 522004 4/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being Private Limited Company engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid sowing seeds, filed its return of income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. EMMAR LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has deposited employees’ contribution to PF and ESI of Rs. 15,37,776/- beyond the due dates as stipulated under the PF & ESI Acts, therefore, same are disallowed. 4. On appeal