JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Section 154 order. The delay in filing the present appeal was condoned due to bonafide reasons.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "154

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,KANURU vs. ITO, TDS, WARD(1), ELURU, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

section 154 of the Act dated 02.12.2019 was filed on 16.11.2022 with a delay of 1049 days. He further submitted that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the period covered under COVID is excluded and actual delay is only 334 days. He further submitted that petition for condonation

PARASURAM KESARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condoned the delay of 570 days in filing the appeal when the delay was explained with cause vide petition filed before the Ld. CIT(A) along with affidavit. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in a summary and casual manner observed that assessee failed to explain the delay reasonably ignoring the contents of petition filed along with affidavit, which by themselves

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKRTING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

PADMADEVI BHANSALI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.520/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Padma Devi Bhansali Vs. Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Aevpb1105N] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 25.08.2022 with the delay of 40 days. The learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay in filing of the appeal by 40 days and did not condone

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.234/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition, which is as under: - “5. The reasons for delay are detailed as under: o The CIT (Appeals) directed to treat the appellant as an Association of Persons (AOP) and include Hundi receipts as revenue income, as per Para 5.1.9 on Page 15 of the order. o Although the appellant

THE SOCIETY FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.435/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) The Society For Collegiate Education V. Dcit (Exemptions) Exemption Circle D.No. 52-14-75 Income Tax Office New Resapuvanipalem C.R. Building “Annex” Visakhapatnam – 530013 M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaatt9499E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Meanwhile, consequent to the rectification petition filed by the assessee on 07.10.2023 another rectification order under section 154 r.w.s. 43(1) of the Act was passed on 24.11.2023 by allowing the accumulation claimed by the assessee in Form – 10 and while filing the return of income for Page No. 2 I.T.A.No

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

SRIKANTH ATLURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TXA OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Srikanth Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 30-13/1-18, Durgaagraharam Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpa5568H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 25.05.2023. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed

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

SATYA TULASI DONEPALLI,KORUKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KAMBALA TANK

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2011-12) Vs. Satya Tulasi Donepalli Income Tax Officer-Ward-3 Rajahmundry Sri Parvathi Parameswara Oil Agency Main Road, Korukonda East Godavari District – 533289 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Avtpd0908N] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025

condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition, which is as under: - “2. That I had represented the appellant, Smt. Donepalli Satya Tulasi, during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. That I was entrusted with the responsibility of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

GUMMADI SARASWATHI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.03.2022. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 94 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed

BHARATH YUVA SANKSHEMA SANGHAM,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham V. Income Tax Officer 20B-7-21/1 Income Tax Office C/O. Ayyappa Medicals Eluru, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh Gandhi Nagar, Eluru West Godavari District – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aidpg1046K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condone the delay of 19 Page No. 2 Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham 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, assessee’s society is engaged in providing man power services to various government departments. During the year under consideration, the assessee