PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

200 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.1,21,128 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. ““1. The order of the learned CIT (A)-10 is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

200 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.1,21,128 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. ““1. The order of the learned CIT (A)-10 is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned

KANDIPALLI APPALA RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short\n'Act') by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless\nAppeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)"], for the A.Y. 2018-19.\n2. The present appeal is delayed by 207 days. Along with the appeal, the\nassessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay of 116 days in filing\nthe appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual. As per the information available with the\nDepartment, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has\ndeposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.8,56,824/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income and passed the order dated 26.03.2022. 3. On being aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred two appeals i.e., one appeal against the quantum addition and the other appeal against

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.8,56,824/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income and passed the order dated 26.03.2022. 3. On being aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred two appeals i.e., one appeal against the quantum addition and the other appeal against

ALURI YOGENDRA KUMAR L/R OF LATE ALURI MADHUSUDHANA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

3. We have heard both the sides and we find that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay, accordingly the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, based out at VSEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, is engaged in the manufacturing and export of wide range of herbal extracts, filed

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed return of income for A.Y.2015-16. It was noticed by the department that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.80,45,200/- in his bank account No.048301500633 maintained with ICICI

PEDDINI ASHOK KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Peddini Ashok Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(1) D.No. 49-36-13/1 Income Tax Office Nggo’S Colony, Akkayyapalem Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aqlpp3626L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we 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 for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 admitting total income at Rs.7,82,200/-. The case

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issue involved therein, on merits, is with respect to levy of late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions as per which there is no provision under

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issue involved therein, on merits, is with respect to levy of late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions as per which there is no provision under

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issue involved therein, on merits, is with respect to levy of late filing fee U/s. 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions as per which there is no provision under

CHARITASRI HOSPITALS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE -1, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos.98 & 99/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Charitasri Hospitals Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vijayawada. Tax, Pan: Aaccc 2726 L Tds Circle-1, Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 30/08/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 104 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the cases on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds for the AY 2013-14: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 3

CHARITASRI HOSPITALS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE -1, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos.98 & 99/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Charitasri Hospitals Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vijayawada. Tax, Pan: Aaccc 2726 L Tds Circle-1, Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 30/08/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 104 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the cases on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds for the AY 2013-14: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 3