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

3. The assessee further submitted that, the delay in filing the appeals was not as a result of any negligence or lack of diligence, but solely due to the unforeseen circumstances surrounding his health, and also filed a Doctor’s Certificate in support of his petition. Since there was a sufficient cause, the assessee prayed that the delay

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

3. The assessee further submitted that, the delay in filing the appeals was not as a result of any negligence or lack of diligence, but solely due to the unforeseen circumstances surrounding his health, and also filed a Doctor’s Certificate in support of his petition. Since there was a sufficient cause, the assessee prayed that the 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)

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

SADHIKA GANNI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had during the year under consideration made cash deposits of Rs.1 crore in her bank account with HDFC Bank Account No.50100077065070, Branch: Rajamahendravaram on 12.11.2016, which thereafter was transferred to another account held by one Sri Bhaskara Rao on 14.11.2016. 8. On a perusal

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

142(1), which included supporting documents and clarifications. 5. Invalid Invocation of Section 145(3): The AO invoked Section 145(3) without pointing out any defects in the audited books. 6. Arbitrary Estimation of Income Without Evidence: The AO estimated income at 8% of gross receipts without providing any industry benchmarks or supporting evidence. 7. Additional Ground (General Prayer

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Unit–4, Vijayawada, vide his letter dated 04.02.2019, observed that the assessee had made cash deposits

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

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

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

142(1) of the Act. 15. Although the Ld. Sr. DR had tried to impress upon us that for framing of assessment pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, there is no further obligation cast upon the AO to issue a notice under section

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condone the delay of 106 days in\nfiling the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n6.\nThe brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an\nindividual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and\nfiled his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19-\n10-2015, declaring income

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

JANAKI RAM BABJI RAO ANNAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 11 days in 3 filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income electronically on 09/12/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 3

ANIL KUMAR VELLAGA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["143(3)", "142(1)", "132(1)", "69A"], "issues": "Whether the reasons provided by the assessee

PALLA MADHUSUDANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Palla Madhusudana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Door No.14-6-7, Ramajogipeta Ward-1(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bhrpp0382F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri N.Ravi Babu, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, [Cit(A)]-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10357/2018-19/A3 Cit(A)-6 Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Carrying On Business In The Sale Of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12 On 25.09.2011, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,28,950/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, Accordingly

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) were issued and served on the assessee, calling for information. However, neither the assessee appeared nor filed information called for. Hence, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment as per the material available on record u/s 144 of the Act. During the year relevant to the A.Y.2011-12, the assessee

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER ININCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee's appeals for the AY 2014-15 to 2017-\n18 are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

142(1) of the Act, completed the assessment to the\nbest of his judgment based on the material available before him as per\nthe provisions of section 144(1) of the Act. While making the\nassessment, the Ld. AO observed that even though the assessee was\nasked to explain the nature and the source of the investments made in\nthe

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Tulasi Seeds Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Standard House, Beside Sbi Door No. 6-4-6, Tulasi House Nagarampalem, Guntur – 522004 4/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 3 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 that, assessee being Private Limited Company engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid sowing seeds, filed its return of income

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide reasons. On merits, it upheld the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69A but directed the AO to restrict the addition by Rs. 2,50,000/- based on CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, treating the remaining Rs. 8,50,000/- as unexplained

MANNE KRISHNA KISHORE,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

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

142(1) of the Act were issued on 2/1/2015 and 20/01/2015 and called for certain information. In reply, the Authorized Representative of the assessee has appeared before the Ld. AO from time to time and furnished the relevant information. On perusal of the assessee’s explanation and submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that

KORADA RAJU,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, VIZIANAGARM

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

condoned the delay of 381 days, acknowledging that it was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to be heard.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133(6)", "142