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

Bench: Us:

iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice- oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been

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

Bench: Us:

iv. Without prejudice to ground no ill" the issuance of manual notice by the AO Rjy u/s 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

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

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

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SRIKAKAULAM vs. SRI VASAVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED`, RAJAM,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.606/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs M/S Sri Vasavi Polymers P.Ltd. Ward-3 S.No.125 & 126, Anthakapalli Srikakulam Rajam [Pan : Aaecs1849J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-9, Hyderabad In Ita No.10300/Cit(A)-9, Hyd/2017-18 Dated 09.08.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. With The Delay Of 1 Day. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition & Submitted That The Delay Was Due To The 2

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession of evidence for some of the deductions claimed by him. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession of evidence for some of the deductions claimed by him. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 144 and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), respectively, for A.Y. 2020-21. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2020-21 in wherein

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 144 and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), respectively, for A.Y. 2020-21. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2020-21 in wherein

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2 Guntur in ITA No.56/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2011-12 dated 29.11.2018, CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.188/2017-18,ACIT,C-1-Rjy/CIT(A)-11/Hyd and CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad Appeal No.189/2017-18/ACIT

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2 Guntur in ITA No.56/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2011-12 dated 29.11.2018, CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.188/2017-18,ACIT,C-1-Rjy/CIT(A)-11/Hyd and CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad Appeal No.189/2017-18/ACIT

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (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.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (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.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

ANDHARA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (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.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case