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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143

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

Bench: Us:

143(2) dt. 24.09.2018, lacks legal sanctity, since the notice lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN), rendering it legally invalid in view of CBDT circular and judicial precedents. Further, the impugned notice has not been served as claimed to have been so by A.O. RjY. 2 2. The order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is erroneous both

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)

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 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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 13.09.2022 by\ndisallowing adding Rs.16,15,079/- being deduction claimed under section\n80P towards income derived from investments under section80P(2)(d)\nbeing a co-operative society.\n\n3.\nThat the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of deduction\nclaimed under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs.16,15,079. The order\nwas passed

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2015-16, the addition of Rs. 45,58,500/- was upheld. For AY 2020-21, the addition of Rs. 27,29,450/- for unexplained jewellery was also upheld, and the benefit of telescoping was denied.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "153A", "144", "143(2

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.

condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The appellant/assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee has not furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on or before the due date

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.08.2021\nand notice under section 142(1) was issued on 11.09.2021. In response,\nassessee furnished his reply on 23.09.2021 by furnishing the relevant\ninformation required along with evidences in support of his claims. In response\nto the show-cause notice, assessee submitted his reply regarding the investments\nin gold and silver jewellery

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

SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

section 143(3) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act') dated 23.04.2021.\n2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of\n346 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for\nbelated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed

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

143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. At the outset, we noted from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. DR drawn our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Asst. Commissioner

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

143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. At the outset, we noted from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. DR drawn our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Asst. Commissioner

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

143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. At the outset, we noted from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. DR drawn our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Asst. Commissioner

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

2\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan Rao Valluru --\n4.\nThat the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing\nOfficer had already passed an order under Section 154 of the Act on Dt\n04.08.2021 rectifying the impugned assessment order, pursuant to which\nthe demand was reduced to Nil. The CIT (A) erred

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

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

THE CHINAOGIRALA PACS LTD,CHINAOGIRALA VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GUDIVADA, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.296/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinaogirala Village, Ward-1, Vuyyuru Mandal, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521301. Andha Pradesh-521245. Pan: Aacat 8188 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 22/09/2022. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 93 days. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC the assessee filed affidavit seeking condonation of delay and explained the reasons that prevented the assessee to file

THE TENALI PT EMPLOYEES MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP THRIFT CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 361/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) The Tenali P & T Employees V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift & Income Tax Office Credit Society Limited Opp. Sai Baba Temple, Bose Road D.No. 22-5-60, Sarojini Naidu Street Tenali – 522201, Andhra Pradesh Tanali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aacat9757E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 01.05.2020. 2. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay