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

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

1). The same is visible in the portal as if uploaded(assessed) on 11-01-2019 but assessee is unable to download from the portal and running from pillar to post to get a copy of that for filing appeal. The delays are not attributable top assessee and file this appeal immediately. Hence the delay may be condoned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

36(1)(iii) and made additions to income of assessee- He also directed for issuance of notice under section 271(1)(c) - He further levied penalty within band of 100 percent to 300 percent of said amount - It was noted that Tribunal noted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed on two limbs, first, for furnishing incorrect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, , ELURU vs. THE ELURU CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, ELURU

In the result, cross objection 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.384/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Ay:2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. The Eluru Cooperative Urban Tax, Bank Limited, Circle-1, Eluru. Eluru. Pan: Aaabt 0168 L (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) C.O. No.108/Viz/2019 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay :2010-11) The Eluru Cooperative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Eluru. Circle-1, Pan: Aaabt 0168 L Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,452/- made by the AO on account

THE CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,CHODAVARAM vs. THE DY.CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

delayed payment cannot be allowed u/sec. 43B. The report, the addition of Rs. 1,19,93,542/- is confirmed on the basis of judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and CBDT circular. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Against the impugned order, Assessee preferred the instant appeal

THE CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,CHODAVARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

delayed payment cannot be allowed u/sec. 43B. The report, the addition of Rs. 1,19,93,542/- is confirmed on the basis of judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and CBDT circular. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Against the impugned order, Assessee preferred the instant appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEM ENGINEERING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Nem Engineering Visakhapatnam. Projects Private Ltd., D.No. 55-15-6, Housing Board Colony, Krishna College Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaccn 6245 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee-company engaged in the business of Mechanical, Erection & Engineering Contractors. The assessee has remitted the employees’ contribution to PF account belatedly. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee has not remitted within the prescribed due date as per the relevant

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

36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment made to employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI under the respective Acts. (Systematic Enterprises) 4. Aggrieved by the order u/sec. 154 r.w.s. 143(1), the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 08.03.2021, which was migrated to the NFAC in terms of Notification No. 76/2020 in S.O.No

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

36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment made to employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI under the respective Acts. (Systematic Enterprises) 4. Aggrieved by the order u/sec. 154 r.w.s. 143(1), the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 08.03.2021, which was migrated to the NFAC in terms of Notification No. 76/2020 in S.O.No

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI KRISHNA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Krishna Engineering Visakhapatnam. & Construction Co., Flat No. 9, Kalyani, Sector-2, Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aapfs 8945 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. 3. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to employees contribution to PF & ESI. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has deposited employees’ share of PF and ESI of Rs. 26,53,630/- beyond the due dates as stipulated under

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Us :

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act the assessee's claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee's share of contribution od EPF/ESI amounting to Rs. 62,02,070/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success on the issue in hand i.e., the sustainability of the disallowance

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Us :

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act the assessee's claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee's share of contribution od EPF/ESI amounting to Rs. 62,02,070/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success on the issue in hand i.e., the sustainability of the disallowance

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. EMMAR LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has deposited employees’ contribution to PF and ESI of Rs. 15,37,776/- beyond the due dates as stipulated under the PF & ESI Acts, therefore, same are disallowed. 4. On appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. EMMAR LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has deposited employees’ contribution to PF and ESI of Rs. 15,37,776/- beyond the due dates as stipulated under the PF & ESI Acts, therefore, same are disallowed. 4. On appeal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SRIKAKAULAM vs. SRI VASAVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED`, RAJAM,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.606/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs M/S Sri Vasavi Polymers P.Ltd. Ward-3 S.No.125 & 126, Anthakapalli Srikakulam Rajam [Pan : Aaecs1849J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-9, Hyderabad In Ita No.10300/Cit(A)-9, Hyd/2017-18 Dated 09.08.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. With The Delay Of 1 Day. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition & Submitted That The Delay Was Due To The 2

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November