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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.” 18. From the bare reading of the above sub-section 5 of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed to assessee under any provision

THE MUNDLAPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUNDLAPADU VILLAGE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.250/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Mundlapadu Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-1(3), Society Limited, Mundlapadu Vijayawada. Village & Post, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 521190. Pan: Aacat7977J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 06 days in 3 filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. As per the information available with the Department, the assessee has deposited cash

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

THE KONAYAPALEM PACS LTD.,CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.126/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Konayapalem Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-(3), Society Limited, Konayapalem Vijayawada. Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 521182. Pan: Aacat 6987 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 97 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 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd [PACS]. During the AY 2017-18, as per the information available with the Department

M/S, ACN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVTL LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT (A),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) M/S Acn Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) D.No.9-14-3A, Visakhapatnam Balaji’S Mangalagiri Chambers Vip Road Visakhapatnam [Pan:Aafca7810A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly, the Assessing Officer

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

BRITG FOUNDATION,VIZIANAGARAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.208/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2022-23 To 2026-27) Britg Foundation V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) 22-14-12, Kotlamadappa Street Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. L.B. Stadium Vizianagaram H.O. Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Telangana Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaetb5357K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Sanjeevarao, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

2 I.T.A.No.208/VIZ/2025 BRITG FOUNDATION limit with a delay of 90 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 90 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 filed an e-application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB

SRI VENKATESWARA VIDYA PEETH,,HYDERABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Venkateswara Vidya Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Peeth, C/O Samuel Nagadesi, Hyderabad. Ca, 408, Sri Ramakrishna Towers, Beside Image Hospital, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan No. Aaets 8295 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. There is a delay of 34 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit wherein he explained the reasons for delay. We find that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay . Accordingly, delay is condoned. (M/s. Sri Venkateswara Vidya Peeth) 3. So far as merits of the case is concerned, the assessee

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TETALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 86 Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are, assessee has been granted Registration under section 12A of sub-section (1) of clause

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TANAKU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 86 Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are, assessee has been granted Registration under section 12A of sub-section (1) of clause

SRI VENKATACHARYA VAIDIKA SAMSTHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.322 & 323/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1)) 11-203, Sowmya Kuti, Prahladapuram 35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [Pan: Aaits2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10A was filed under incorrect clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) instead of filing the same under clause (i) of first proviso to section 80G(5) without appreciating that in the present application filed for final approval under clause iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5), the scope of verification by the CIT should have been

SRI VENKATACHARYA VAIDIKA SAMSTHAN,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.322 & 323/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1)) 11-203, Sowmya Kuti, Prahladapuram 35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [Pan: Aaits2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

10A was filed under incorrect clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) instead of filing the same under clause (i) of first proviso to section 80G(5) without appreciating that in the present application filed for final approval under clause iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5), the scope of verification by the CIT should have been

DE PAUL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), RAJAHMUNDRY

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’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.229/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :) De Paul Educational Society, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Eluru, West Godavari District, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh Pan: Aaaad 7299 K (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Sherry Samuel Oommen, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

delay of 152 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following concise of grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT has passed the impugned order in gross violation of natural justice, without application of mind and against the doctrine of fairness