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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

NARRA GANGA DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 243/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Narra Ganga Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer,] Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Anwpn8051F Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual did not file her return of income for the AY 2012- 13. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that during

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. 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. 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

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

delayed, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as the requirement to issue notice cannot be dispensed with. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. S.G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Delhi) had, inter alia, held that where the assessee company had filed the return income

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ATTILI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito (Exemptions), Vs. M/S. Agricultural Market Rajahmundry. Committee, D.No. 2-166, Market Road, Attili, West Godavari District. Pan No. Aaala 0351 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.103/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 340/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2005-06) M/S. Agricultural Market Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Committee, D.No. 2-166, Rajahmundry. Market Road, Attili, West Godavari District. Pan No. Aaala 0351 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

108 days in cross objection. In the appeal, revenue filed an application for condonation of delay. We have gone through the application and find that there is a sufficient cause for non-filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and is admitted for hearing. Insofar as cross objection is concerned, no condonation application