DR KONDABOLU BASAVAPUNAIAH & DR LAKSHMI PRASAD TRUST,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

condone the delay in\nfiling the present appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.\n4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1.\nThat, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, dt.27.12.2019

OMMI SANDEEP,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

condone the delay of 24 days\nPage No. 2\nin filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on\nmerits in the following paragraphs.\n4.\nThe only issue to be adjudicated in the above cited appeal is whether the\nAppellant Cooperative Society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act, when

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

C may be waived, since the same was arising due to impugned additions in sec 143(1)(a) according to the wrong facts & observations as per the grounds mentioned above. 11. Any other ground that may be add/delete or urged at the time of hearing or before the hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income

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

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

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

1) of the Act was issued on 29.03.2017, and the assessee filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 06.03.2023. It is noted that the assessee sought condonation of delay when filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the impugned order, has condoned the delay. Therefore, for all practical purposes

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

c) of Form-35 the order was served on 23/03/2024. In this way the appeal was filed late. As per the provisions of section 249 of the Act appeal was to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the order was served. The appellant mentioned 'Yes' against Column No. 14 of Form 35- "Whether there is delay

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical, we shall take up the ITA No. 236/Viz/2022 (AY 2013-14) as the lead appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case pertaining

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical, we shall take up the ITA No. 236/Viz/2022 (AY 2013-14) as the lead appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case pertaining

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical, we shall take up the ITA No. 236/Viz/2022 (AY 2013-14) as the lead appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case pertaining

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

condoned. (The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.) In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund

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

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

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1 & 7 are general in nature and needs not adjudication. 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the condonation of delay of 2513 days. He Further submitted that the delay in filing of appeal was due to the death of the Treasurer and Joint Secretary during the COVID-19 period

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1 & 7 are general in nature and needs not adjudication. 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the condonation of delay of 2513 days. He Further submitted that the delay in filing of appeal was due to the death of the Treasurer and Joint Secretary during the COVID-19 period

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

C. Subrahmanyam, C.A. referring to the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for four days delay in filing of the appeal, for non- filing of an application for condonation of delay, without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that, the issue

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

C. Subrahmanyam, C.A. referring to the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for four days delay in filing of the appeal, for non- filing of an application for condonation of delay, without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that, the issue