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)

D. Tirupati Rao, partner of the assessee firm, submitted that, the assessee firm could not notice the order passed by the A.O. and uploaded in the ITBA portal on 27.01.2022 and further only after getting a call from the ITO for recovery of tax, had visited the office of the ITO and collected the order copy on 22.05.2024. Further

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)

D. Tirupati Rao, partner of the assessee firm, submitted that, the assessee firm could not notice the order passed by the A.O. and uploaded in the ITBA portal on 27.01.2022 and further only after getting a call from the ITO for recovery of tax, had visited the office of the ITO and collected the order copy on 22.05.2024. Further

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)

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 to furnish the same. 10. The AO based on the aforesaid facts holding a conviction that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the source

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

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 of 1503 days that was involved

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

d) of the Act dated 30.03.2023. Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 was thereafter issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had in the subject year made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 34,00,000/- in his bank account with Canara Bank

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

D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : Out of the captioned appeals, ITA No. 226 & 227/Viz/2022 (AY: 2018-19 and 2019-20) are filed by the Revenue; CO No. 15 & 16/Viz/2023 (AY: 2018-19 and 2019-20) and ITA No. 97/Viz/2023 (AY: 2020-21) are filed by the assessee. Since the issues raised in Revenue’s appeals, Cross

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

D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : Out of the captioned appeals, ITA No. 226 & 227/Viz/2022 (AY: 2018-19 and 2019-20) are filed by the Revenue; CO No. 15 & 16/Viz/2023 (AY: 2018-19 and 2019-20) and ITA No. 97/Viz/2023 (AY: 2020-21) are filed by the assessee. Since the issues raised in Revenue’s appeals, Cross

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

D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : Out of the captioned appeals, ITA No. 226 & 227/Viz/2022 (AY: 2018-19 and 2019-20) are filed by the Revenue; CO No. 15 & 16/Viz/2023 (AY: 2018-19 and 2019-20) and ITA No. 97/Viz/2023 (AY: 2020-21) are filed by the assessee. Since the issues raised in Revenue’s appeals, Cross

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]

D E R PER SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad [hereinafter in short I.T.A.No.352/VIZ/2025 Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide Appeal No. CIT(A)/HYD-10/10264/2015-16 dated 15.03.2025 for the A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section

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

condone the delay of 26\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n\n24. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a cooperative society registered\nunder Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government to AP whose main object\nis to provide agricultural loans by borrowing loans from

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

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

13,500 as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the 55-day delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the AO followed the prescribed procedure and rejected the assessee's arguments regarding the invalidity of the notice. On merits, considering the assessee's plea for a further opportunity, the Tribunal allowed

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

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 12.02.2025 relating to the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these three appeals, these appeals

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

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 12.02.2025 relating to the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these three appeals, these appeals

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)

D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060602731(1) dated 07.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18 arising out the order I.T.A.No.199/VIZ/2024 The P.A.C.S

NO H 1043 BHUJABALAPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (Appeals) - 4, Chennai (for short “Ld.CIT(A)”) relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

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