THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

14. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.551/Viz/2025 is dismissed. 15. Now we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.552/Viz/2025 for A.Y.2017-18. 16. The facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the issue which we had considered in ITA No. 551/Viz/2025. In the present case, the assessee challenged the penalty levied under Section

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

14. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.551/Viz/2025 is dismissed. 15. Now we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.552/Viz/2025 for A.Y.2017-18. 16. The facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the issue which we had considered in ITA No. 551/Viz/2025. In the present case, the assessee challenged the penalty levied under Section

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

2(c) of Form-35 the order was served on 23/03/2024. In this way the appeal was filed late. As per the provisions of section 249 of the Act appeal was to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the order was served. The appellant mentioned 'Yes' against Column No. 14 of Form 35- "Whether there

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

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

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

condone the delay of 26\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n\n24. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a cooperative society registered\nunder Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government to AP whose main object\nis to provide agricultural loans by borrowing loans from

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It accepted the assessee's plea that compensation from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land under the National Highways Act, 1956, is exempt under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Tribunal also considered that the land might not be a 'capital asset' as per Section 2(14

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

Section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee, and thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard

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

Section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee, and thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard

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)

condoned the delay. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the appeal filed on 06.03.2023 would be deemed to have been filed within the statutory period. Consequently, it will be presumed that the appellate proceedings were pending when the registration under section Page No. 4 I.T.A.No.358/VIZ/2024 Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple 12A was granted. Therefore, the assessee is entitled

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:

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

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

NATA RAJA TRADERS,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Nata Raja Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aaefn2642P Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

2% from the farmers and credited to Profit & Loss Account as income. While making payments, the exporters / buyers / traders have applied the provisions of section 194Q of the Act and 194A of the Act for delayed payments, if any. The assessee had mentioned these details in column 14(IV) of the P & L Account. However, while processing the assessee

KANUMURI LAKSHMI UMA KATYAINI ,BAPULAPADU MANDAL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee in the interest of justice. Accordingly the appeals are admitted. 4. The assesses are individuals and filed the Returns of income for the A.Ys 2009-10 to 2011-12 as under: A.Y.2009-10 A.Y.2010-11 A.Y.2011-12 Name of the Returned Date of filing Returned Returned Date of Appellant income income (DOF : Income

KUNUMURI KRISHNA KUMARI,BAPULAPADU MANDAL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee in the interest of justice. Accordingly the appeals are admitted. 4. The assesses are individuals and filed the Returns of income for the A.Ys 2009-10 to 2011-12 as under: A.Y.2009-10 A.Y.2010-11 A.Y.2011-12 Name of the Returned Date of filing Returned Returned Date of Appellant income income (DOF : Income