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)

b) of sub-section (1) of section 282- 1. The address available in the PAN database of the addressee, or 2. The address available in the Income Tax Return to which the communication relates or 3. The address available in the last income tax return furnished by the addressee, or 4. In the case of addressee being a company, address

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)

b) of sub-section (1) of section 282- 1. The address available in the PAN database of the addressee, or 2. The address available in the Income Tax Return to which the communication relates or 3. The address available in the last income tax return furnished by the addressee, or 4. In the case of addressee being a company, address

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

delay and allowed him to file his return of income under section 139(4) r.w.s 119(2)(b) of the Act for the subject year, but the assessee failed to furnish the same. 10. The AO based on the aforesaid facts holding a conviction that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the source

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

B & C may be waived, since the same was arising due to impugned additions in sec 143(1)(a) according to the wrong facts & observations as per the grounds mentioned above. 11. Any other ground that may be add/delete or urged at the time of hearing or before the hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return

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

b) of the Act was issued by the then ITO, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada on 28.02.2023. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2023. Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 was thereafter issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings

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

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

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

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:

3. On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to fracture of right side ankle of the assessee and the consequent medical treatment, the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal for the AYs 2015-16 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone

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:

3. On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to fracture of right side ankle of the assessee and the consequent medical treatment, the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal for the AYs 2015-16 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone

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

3(1) of the TOLA overrides section 149 of\nthe Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of the\nre-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act. TOLA will\ncontinue to apply to the Act after 01.04.2021 if any action or\nproceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Act falls\nfor completion between

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

b) of the Act, to invalidate the proceedings. The cases relied on the Ld.AR is of no help to the assessee since the facts are distinguishable that in those cases assessee has not responded whereas in the instant case assessee has responded within two days i.e., for the notice dated 22.03.2022 on 24.03.2022. We are therefore inclined to dismiss

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

3\nI.T.A.No.457/VIZ/2025\nPadarthi Venkata Sivanagendra Prasada Rao\nu/s. 148 of the act dated 09.04.2021 as deemed show-cause notice as per section\n148A(b) of the Act with a request to the assessee to submit its reply on or before\n06.06.2022. In response to the notices, assessee filed its income Tax return on\n20.08.2022 admitting a total income

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)(iii) of the Income