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/- and Rs. 32

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/- and Rs. 32

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/- and Rs. 32

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

32,250/- in the intimation issued by the A.O/CPC under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2020. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as the assessee, despite having been offered seven opportunities, had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter held a conviction that

KOTA RADHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

condoning the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Succinctly stated, the AO, based on the information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions viz., (i). Cash deposits with Andhra bank above Rs. 2 lakhs

KOTA RADHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

condoning the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Succinctly stated, the AO, based on the information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions viz., (i). Cash deposits with Andhra bank above Rs. 2 lakhs

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

1)(i) of the Act dated 29.01.2018 and called upon him to file his return of income for the subject year. However, the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notice and did not file his return of income as was called upon by the A.O. Thereafter the A.O had issued a notice under section

SYSTEMATIC ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

ii. NFAC has not considered the CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 extending the period of limitation with respect to appeals falling due for filing on or after 15.03.2020 in obedience to the Honourable Supreme Court decision on this issue due to the unprecedented COVID-19 Pandemic. 2. The Central Processing Centre (CPC for short) is not justified in making an addition

SYSTEMATIC ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

ii. NFAC has not considered the CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 extending the period of limitation with respect to appeals falling due for filing on or after 15.03.2020 in obedience to the Honourable Supreme Court decision on this issue due to the unprecedented COVID-19 Pandemic. 2. The Central Processing Centre (CPC for short) is not justified in making an addition

SRIKANTH ATLURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TXA OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Srikanth Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 30-13/1-18, Durgaagraharam Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpa5568H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee being a Non-Resident Individual filed his return of income on 30.09.2021 admitting a total income of Rs. 31,51,720/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. While

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]

32,580/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme, 2019 for verifying “reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund”. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee furnished the information as called for. During the course of scrutiny

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]

32,580/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme, 2019 for verifying “reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund”. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee furnished the information as called for. During the course of scrutiny

M/S MIRACLE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS (I) PVT., LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.43/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09) M/S. Miracle Software Systems (I) Vs. Dcit, Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcm 4988 R (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sashtri, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of software development, Business Process Outsourcing and consultancy 3 services, filed the return of income for the AY 2008-09 admitting a total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), , GUNTUR vs. BBM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, Revenue appeal is allowed and the C

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnan.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.185/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Vs. Bbm Estates (P) Ltd Circle 1(1) Guntur Guntur Pan: Aaace2607G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.12/Viz/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1895/Viz/2024) Bbm Estates (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Guntur Circle 1(1) Pan: Aaace2607G Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Satyasai Rath, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order

1 of 17 ITA No 185 of 2024 and CO 12 of 2024 BBM Estates P Ltd an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. The learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer was on Election Duty for the General Elections of 2024 as Nodal Officer for the Districts of Guntur, Baptla and Palnadu

KODALI SURESH BABU,LABBIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

condonation of delay was also rejected by the Ld. CIT (IT & TP), Hyderabad vide order dated 28/09/2021. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny by issuing notice U/s. 142(1) on various dates. In response, the assessee filed a detailed reply through email explaining the sources for payment of Rs. 6,16,67,850/-, which was accepted