DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

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

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

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay 11. involved in filing the present appeal is not inordinate and is further substantiated by justifiable reasons, therefore, the same merits condonation. 12. On merits, Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao appeal, submitted that

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay 11. involved in filing the present appeal is not inordinate and is further substantiated by justifiable reasons, therefore, the same merits condonation. 12. On merits, Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao appeal, submitted that

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

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

condonation is hereby requested in the interest of justice.” The ld.CIT(A), therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dated 27/04/2021

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

condonation is hereby requested in the interest of justice.” The ld.CIT(A), therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dated 27/04/2021