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

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

C. Subrahmanyam to take the matter for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam and ultimately the appeal was filed on 28/01/2020, thus causing a delay in filing the appeal by 606 days. It was further stated in the affidavit that delay is on account of reasons cited hereinabove and there was no malafide intention in not filing

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

C. Subrahmanyam to take the matter for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam and ultimately the appeal was filed on 28/01/2020, thus causing a delay in filing the appeal by 606 days. It was further stated in the affidavit that delay is on account of reasons cited hereinabove and there was no malafide intention in not filing

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