SURYANARAYANA REDDY TONDAPU,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.170/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Suryanarayana Reddy Tondapu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada. Ward-1, Pan: Adppt 6393 K Kakinada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Dl Narasimha Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 38 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 is an individual, filed declaration in Form-1 as per IDS-2016 before the Ld. Pr. CIT-2, Visakahaptnam and Form

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, 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 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. K.VENKATA RAJU, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.501/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Circle-2(1) D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Rajahmundry Kadiam Mandal Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.153/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.501/Viz/2019) (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Tax Kadiam Mandal Circle-2(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Scondonation Of Delay :

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), Rajahmundry is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. The CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation from the net profit estimated from contractual receipt. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

38,000/- @ 8% and made a consequential addition of Rs.16,59,040/-. Accordingly, the A.O based on his aforesaid deliberations vide his order passed under section 144 of the Act, dated 15.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,94,040/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

M/S MIRACLE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS (I) PVT., LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.43/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09) M/S. Miracle Software Systems (I) Vs. Dcit, Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcm 4988 R (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sashtri, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of software development, Business Process Outsourcing and consultancy 3 services, filed the return of income for the AY 2008-09 admitting a total

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.237/Viz/2020, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

DE PAUL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,ELURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.155/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) De Paul Educational Society Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pinakadimi (Exemptions) Pinakadimi Post Hyderabad Pedavegi Mandal Eluru, West Godavari [Pan :Aaaad7299K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Johney, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

condone the delay of 232 days and proceed to hear the case on merits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 with Reg. No.215/1994. The assessee is engaged in imparting education as covered u/s 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

THE P A C S NOH 1002,PACS VELVADAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The P.A.C.S Noh 1002 V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(5) Pacs Velvadam, Velvadam Post C.R. Building Mylavaram, Krishna District – 521230 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap8170G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 28 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, assessee is a society rendering services and providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee has not filed return of income under section

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

condone the delay of 26\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n\n24. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a cooperative society registered\nunder Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government to AP whose main object\nis to provide agricultural loans by borrowing loans from

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

38,405/- and declared surplus of Rs. 92,910/-. Ld. AO found that assessee is not Registered under section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year but has Registered with effect from A.Y. 2017-18. Ld. AO therefore concluded that in the absence of Registration under section 12A of the Act assessee cannot claim 15% surplus as exempt

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

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

CH RAMA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ch. Rama Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-99, Ramavarappadu, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada-521108. Vijayawada. Pan: Aacfc0545L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm doing business of petrol bunk in the name & style of M/s. Ch. Rama Rao (Indian Oil Dealers) at Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 01.02.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.39,17,731/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As discernible from the record, the CIT(A), having taken cognizance of the fact that the assessee despite having been put to notice