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

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

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

1. The ourder U/s. 250 of the Act dated 21/09/2022 passed by the CIT(A) was served on the same date as displayed in income tax portal. The appeal was to be filed on / before 20/11/2022 but the same is filed on 6/12/2022 thus causing a delay of 16 days. The reason for the delay is that managing partner

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

1. The ourder U/s. 250 of the Act dated 21/09/2022 passed by the CIT(A) was served on the same date as displayed in income tax portal. The appeal was to be filed on / before 20/11/2022 but the same is filed on 6/12/2022 thus causing a delay of 16 days. The reason for the delay is that managing partner

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

1. The ourder U/s. 250 of the Act dated 21/09/2022 passed by the CIT(A) was served on the same date as displayed in income tax portal. The appeal was to be filed on / before 20/11/2022 but the same is filed on 6/12/2022 thus causing a delay of 16 days. The reason for the delay is that managing partner

ANJAN DASGUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

246A(1)(a) of the Act with a delay of more than 05 years. 3. On appeal, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee filed the appeal on 21/09/2023 after more than 5 years of passing of intimation. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad further observed that

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

1) dated 06.06.2024 for the I.T.A.No. 13/VIZ/2025 Satya Tulasi Donepalli A.Y.2011-12 arising out of the order passed under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 21.03.2014. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 155 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons

AMMA VAYOVRUDHA SEVASADA NAM,KESARAPALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Amma Vayovrudha Sevasada Vs. Income Tax Officer Nam, Kesarapalli. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaata 4192 R Rajahmundry. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Madhusudan, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

246A of the Act relying upon decisions may have no relevance, taking cognizance of the fact that the appellant was confronted by reasons beyond his control as enumerated in the Notarized Affidavit filed with appeal petition in Form No. 35. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the adjustment made by CPC, Bengaluru U/s. 143(1

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 01.02.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.39,17,731/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As discernible from the record, the CIT(A), having taken cognizance of the fact that the assessee despite having been put to notice

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 01.02.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.39,17,731/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As discernible from the record, the CIT(A), having taken cognizance of the fact that the assessee despite having been put to notice