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

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)

II of the Sugandhavanam project. Up to the date of survey, the firm had sold a total area of 59,450 sq. yards since March 2014. The average sale price per sq. yard was Rs.1,743/-. Further, after analysing the impounded material, the average sale price was worked out to Rs.1,793/- per sq. yard. Thus, there is a difference

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)

II of the Sugandhavanam project. Up to the date of survey, the firm had sold a total area of 59,450 sq. yards since March 2014. The average sale price per sq. yard was Rs.1,743/-. Further, after analysing the impounded material, the average sale price was worked out to Rs.1,793/- per sq. yard. Thus, there is a difference

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

35” that, as during the relevant period he was suffering from ill health due to jaundice and typhoid, therefore, for the said reason the filing of the appeal was delayed by a period of 32 days. However, we find that the CIT(A) had declined to condone the delay on the ground that the assessee had failed to come forth

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

ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is\nsought to be issued because of the "time limits\nspecified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the\nold regime.”\n10.\nThe first proviso of section 149(1)(b) prescribed under section\n149(1)(a) of the old regime continues to exist

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

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

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

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in\nfiling of the present appeal.\n5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of\ncertain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents:\n(i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition\nof land from assessee

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Tulasi Seeds Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Standard House, Beside Sbi Door No. 6-4-6, Tulasi House Nagarampalem, Guntur – 522004 4/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 3 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 that, assessee being Private Limited Company engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid sowing seeds, filed its return of income

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 28.03.2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 28.03.2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

35 for\ncommunication. The assessee further submitted that he neither received a hearing\nnotice nor received the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to\nnon-compliance with the hearing notices. It is further submitted that only in the\nsecond week of May, 2025, through a phone call from the Income Tax\nDepartment asking

SRI VENKATACHARYA VAIDIKA SAMSTHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.322 & 323/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1)) 11-203, Sowmya Kuti, Prahladapuram 35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [Pan: Aaits2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [PAN: AAITS2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri Sanket Milind Joshi, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT(DR) सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing

SRI VENKATACHARYA VAIDIKA SAMSTHAN,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.322 & 323/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1)) 11-203, Sowmya Kuti, Prahladapuram 35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [Pan: Aaits2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [PAN: AAITS2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri Sanket Milind Joshi, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT(DR) सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing