OMMI SANDEEP,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

condone the delay of 24 days\nPage No. 2\nin filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on\nmerits in the following paragraphs.\n4.\nThe only issue to be adjudicated in the above cited appeal is whether the\nAppellant Cooperative Society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act, when

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 of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143(1). The same is visible

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

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

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

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

31-03-2021 was issued and duly served on the assessee. However, neither the assessee has filed return of income nor sought any adjournment. The A.O. taken up the case for scrutiny and issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, on various dates and called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences. The A.O. issued one more notice

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

31-03-2021 was issued and duly served on the assessee. However, neither the assessee has filed return of income nor sought any adjournment. The A.O. taken up the case for scrutiny and issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, on various dates and called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences. The A.O. issued one more notice

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

31 years, in approaching the apex Court. As it is well settled that the period of delay is not relevant for considering the application for condonation of delay. What is required to be seen is as to whether a party seeking condonation of delay has made out a “sufficient cause or not”. 5.3. However the apex Court In Ramlal

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

31 years, in approaching the apex Court. As it is well settled that the period of delay is not relevant for considering the application for condonation of delay. What is required to be seen is as to whether a party seeking condonation of delay has made out a “sufficient cause or not”. 5.3. However the apex Court In Ramlal

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

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

31-03-2021 was issued\nand duly served on the assessee. However, neither the assessee\nhas filed return of income nor sought any adjournment. The A.O.\ntaken up the case for scrutiny and issued notice under Section\n142(1) of the Act, on various dates and called upon the assessee to\nfile relevant evidences. The A.O. issued one more notice

SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

31,486 raised towards interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 153 days in filing

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

SRIPADA SRIVALLABHA MAHA SAMSTANAM,PITHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION WARD), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.289/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sripada Srivallabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahasamsthanam Exemption Ward Pithapuram Rajahmundry Pan:Aadts8424P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vvs Narayana Medisetti राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. Impugned order dated 24-12-2019 under section

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,KANURU vs. ITO, TDS, WARD(1), ELURU, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

1. The order of Ld.NFAC not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without considering the condonation petition and submissions with settled case laws confirming the order U/S. 154 is erroneous in law, contrary to facts and probabilities of the case and against the principles of equity, natural law and justice. 2. The Ld.NFAC not condoned the delay in filing

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

KANUMURI PRASAD,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

SAMANTHAPUDI RAJA RAMESH,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