SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

condone the delay of 150 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 9. Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate, Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of appeal sought for admission of additional grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as below: “1. Assessment in the case of the appellant

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding in light of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and noticed that, the reasons given by the assessee do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the huge delay

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding in light of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and noticed that, the reasons given by the assessee do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the huge delay

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act, dated 29/11/2019 5 Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor vs. ITO to furnish a copy of the letter wherein the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam had condoned the delay and allowed him to file his return of income under section 139(4) r.w.s 119(2)(b) of the Act for the subject year, but the assessee failed

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

13,40,509/-, the same was determined by the AO/CPC, Bangalore at Rs. 27,57,118/-. 7. I find that the assessee aggrieved with the order of AO/CPC, Bangalore, passed under section 143(1) dated 11.01.2019, had carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who declined to condone the inordinate delay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. KANDULA LAKSHUMMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KADAPA

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Smt.Kandula Income Tax (Exemptions) Lakshumma Memorial Vijayawada Educational Society D.No.3/429 Raja Reddy Street Kadapa [Pan :Aadas4432Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.91/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.179/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Vs. M/S Smt.Kandula Lakshumma Deputy Commissioner Of Memorial Educational Society Income Tax (Exemptions) D.No.3/429 Vijayawada Raja Reddy Street Kadapa [Pan :Aadas4432Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओ रसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020

section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we, hold that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to grant exemption u/s 11, hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. The assessee filed cross objection with

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

section 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee - Whether Since there was a gross delay of 202 days in preferring SLP against said order and explanation offered for said delay was also not satisfactory and neither was it sufficient in law to condone same, application seeking condonation of delay was to be dismissed and, consequently, Special Leave Petition was also

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

13, State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO&Ors, AIR 2005 SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karala&Anr. AIR 2007 SC 2624. 5. In the appellant in the instant case, having considered the facts available on record, the grounds mentioned for inordinate delay of 5 months in filing this appeal are found to be not convincing

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

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 247/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) The Chinnampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Chinnampeta Village Chinnampeta Post, Chatrai Mandal Krishna – 521214, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat7997E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व / Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व / Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(5) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G. Road, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar 16.12.2025 24.02.2026 आदेश /Order Per Omkareshwar Chidara: 1. The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'Act') By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”], For The A.Y. 2017-18.

condone the delay of 24 days Page No. 2 in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. The only issue to be adjudicated in the above cited appeal is whether the Appellant Cooperative Society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, when

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

13 for claiming exemptions. (See also Expln. (1) to Section 11(1).] (d) Section 11(1) (d) specifically grants exemption to capital contributions to make the fact of non-taxability clear beyond doubt. But it proceeds on the erroneous assumptions that such contributions are of income nature - "income in the form of voluntary contributions". This assumption should be disregarded

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

13 for claiming exemptions. (See also Expln. (1) to Section 11(1).] (d) Section 11(1) (d) specifically grants exemption to capital contributions to make the fact of non-taxability clear beyond doubt. But it proceeds on the erroneous assumptions that such contributions are of income nature - "income in the form of voluntary contributions". This assumption should be disregarded

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

13 for claiming exemptions. (See also Expln. (1) to Section 11(1).] (d) Section 11(1) (d) specifically grants exemption to capital contributions to make the fact of non-taxability clear beyond doubt. But it proceeds on the erroneous assumptions that such contributions are of income nature - "income in the form of voluntary contributions". This assumption should be disregarded

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

1) of the Act, dated 23-12-2021 and also requested the assessee to file return of income and furnish relevant evidences in support of source for cash deposit. In response, the assessee, vide letter dated 09-03-2022 submitted that, the transactions appearing in the loan account and S.B account with Indus-Ind Bank, Kakinada, pertain to priority sector

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

1) of the Act, dated 23-12-2021 and also requested the assessee to file return of income and furnish relevant evidences in support of source for cash deposit. In response, the assessee, vide letter dated 09-03-2022 submitted that, the transactions appearing in the loan account and S.B account with Indus-Ind Bank, Kakinada, pertain to priority sector