RAJAJI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and estimated 45% of the gross receipts as income of the assessee. Page. No 2 ITA Nos. 436 & 437/VIZ/2025 Rajaji Educational Society 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee did not respond to the multiple opportunities provided

RAJAJI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and estimated 45% of the gross receipts as income of the assessee. Page. No 2 ITA Nos. 436 & 437/VIZ/2025 Rajaji Educational Society 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee did not respond to the multiple opportunities provided

JANAKI RAM BABJI RAO ANNAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (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 : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 11 days in 3 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 an individual filed his return of income electronically on 09/12/2017 declaring a total income

OURS YOUTH CLUB,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10 days. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay as it was not deliberate. I have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and I find there is a genuine and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. I, therefore condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay in filing\nthe present appeal, and are of the view that as the same is not inordinate and is\nsupported by justifiable reason, therefore, the same merits condonation.\n24.\nComing to the merits of the case, we find that as stated by the Learned\nAuthorised Representatives, the issue involved in the present appeal remains the\nsame as was there

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

45,079/- i.e. @ 8% of Rs. 9,05,63,502/-. As the assessee firm had disclosed its income of Rs.19,83,720/-, therefore, the A.O. restricted the addition to the balance amount of Rs. 52,61,360/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Although the assessee firm was put to notice

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 142(1) was issued on 11.09.2021. In response,\nassessee furnished his reply on 23.09.2021 by furnishing the relevant\ninformation required along with evidences in support of his claims. In response\nto the show-cause notice, assessee submitted his reply regarding the investments\nin gold and silver jewellery. Ld. AO after considering the CBDT Circular 1916\ndated 11.05.1994 found that

HERMON EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the assessee society viz., Hermon Educational Society, Visakhapatnam is running a school by name Hermon School at KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. The assessee society filed it’s return of income for the impugned

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

section 142(1) was issued on 11.09.2021. In response,\nassessee furnished his reply on 23.09.2021 by furnishing the relevant\ninformation required along with evidences in support of his claims. In response\nto the show-cause notice, assessee submitted his reply regarding the investments\nin gold and silver jewellery. Ld. AO after considering the CBDT Circular 1916\ndated 11.05.1994 found that

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay in filing\nthe present appeal, and are of the view that as the same is not inordinate and is\nsupported by justifiable reason, therefore, the same merits condonation.\n24.\nComing to the merits of the case, we find that as stated by the Learned\nAuthorised Representatives, the issue involved in the present appeal remains the\nsame as was there

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

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

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

THE ANIGANDLAPADU PACS LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(1)1 VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, 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.300/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Anigandlapadu Pacs Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-1, Anigandlapadu Village Ward-1(1) Penuganchiprolu Post Vijayawada Penuganchiprolu Mandal Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7983Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, provides credit facilities to it’s members i.e. sanction of crop loans out of deposits collected from it’s members. It also provides services i.e. supply of fertilisers and manures, marketing

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, 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.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, in the business of manufacturing edible oil in the name & style of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery filed return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 3 I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Sinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist. 30.10.2017, admitting total income

ASR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,TANUKU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contentions, submitted that the delay involved in the present case, too, in all fairness, be condoned. 11. Per contra, Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. CIT-DR”) objected to the seeking of the condonation of the delay by the assessee society. Elaborating

BABU RAO SAHUKARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.327/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Babu Rao Sahukari Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) 24-107-54/1 Visakhapatnam – 530020 C/O. Srikar Sai Medical Agencies Andhra Pradesh Gonthivanipalem Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Efnps1341E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Muralidhar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 148 of the Act. Assessee while acknowledging the date of service of the assessment order as 17.03.2023 filed the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) on 13.09.2023 thereby belatedly filed appeal after a period of 179 days. Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has not filed any condonation petition and also not responded to any of the notices issued and therefore

KRISHNA CHAITANYA DURGASI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Blekrishna Chaitanya Durgasi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Eluru Flat No. 507, Om Sai Residency Huda Trade Center Behind Punjab National Bank Lingampally, Hyderabad – 500019 Telangana Pan: Ahkpd6655R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, Assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 12.08.2023 admitting the total income of Rs.1,53,45