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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

ii) Income from House Property: Rs.1,35,000/-; and (iii) Income from Other Sources: Rs.14,16,609/-. Accordingly, the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, based on the aforesaid intimation dated 11.01.2019, raised a demand of Rs. 6,36,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

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

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 143

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)

ii) to comply with the notice issued under section 13/02/2018 and furnish a return of income for the subject year in compliance thereto. 7. The assessee, in compliance to the aforesaid notice issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 12/06/2019 is stated to have put up an appearance before the AO and filed a return of income

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

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

Bench: Us:

ii. Without prejudice to ground no "i" the order u/s 143(3) dt.26.12.2019 passed by the AO Rjy falls outside his jurisdictional bounds, since the jurisdiction to assess the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-8(1) Hyderabad (in short "AO Hyd"). Even otherwise, AO Rjy assumed jurisdiction, without a valid order

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

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)

143(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

SAGARA VIKASA MUTUALLY AIDED COOP THRIFT SOCIETY LTD ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Vs. Income Tax Officer Thrift Society Ltd., Ward-2(1) Opp. Sun School Visakhapatnam Near Vuda Layout, Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacas9620H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay in filing the return is to be condoned. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Unagatla Large Sized Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal vide I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 dated 08.03.2023. The said case law is not applicable to the case on hand, because the case law pertains to section 143(1

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in\nfiling of the present appeal.\n5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of\ncertain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents:\n(i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition\nof land from assessee

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

ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any\nprovision of this Chapter under the heading \"C.—Deductions in respect of\ncertain incomes\",\n\nno such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of\nhis income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified\nunder sub-section (1

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:

143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019, wherein the income of the assessee was determined after making two disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance of penalty expenses: Rs. 49,060/- and (ii). disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of the employees’ share of contribution towards Provident Fund: Rs. 16,382/-. 4. Thereafter, the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income

KRISHNA CHAITANYA DURGASI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Blekrishna Chaitanya Durgasi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Eluru Flat No. 507, Om Sai Residency Huda Trade Center Behind Punjab National Bank Lingampally, Hyderabad – 500019 Telangana Pan: Ahkpd6655R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, Assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 12.08.2023 admitting the total income of Rs.1

MARIAPPAN AUSTIN PRAKASH,BENGALURU, KANRNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTL TXN CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM

condone the delay overlooked the\nimplied powers which subsection (7) to Section 144C of the Act grants,\nwithout demarcating any timeline thereof.”\nPage. No 5\nI.T.A.No.89/VIZ/2025\nVijay Mariappan Austin Prakash\n5.\nThe issues emanating out of the above grounds is as follows: -\ni.\nii.\niii.\nValidity of the final assessment order passed beyond the\nlimitation period as specified under

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

section 143(1) of the Act. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee in the backdrop of the material available on record. In our view, there is substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee during

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

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

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought