SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

1) of the Act, therefore, the A.O was constrained to issue notice under section 144 of the Act dated 02.02.2024, wherein the assessee was called upon to explain as to why the assessment in his case may not be framed to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O called for a copy

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

4) of the Act\nstill the assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act for\nthe A.Y. 2017-18 also. In the impugned case, the appellant-society did not\nfile the return of income at all despite the notices under section 142(1) of the\nAct were issued to the appellant. As discussed above

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)

Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the A.O. Once again, the said appeal was filed on 19.10.2024 with a delay of 966 days. The assessee has explained the reasons by filing petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and attributed the delay to ignorance of income tax proceedings

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)

Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the A.O. Once again, the said appeal was filed on 19.10.2024 with a delay of 966 days. The assessee has explained the reasons by filing petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and attributed the delay to ignorance of income tax proceedings

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

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

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

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

section 144 of the Act. 11. Be that as it may, I am of firm conviction that, as the assessee had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation regarding the inordinate delay of 218 days involved in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter had rightly dismissed the same on the ground of limitation itself

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

4. On the contrary, ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and specifically submitted that filing of the instant appeal with application for condonation of delay is an afterthought and therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The law is well settled

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

4. On the contrary, ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and specifically submitted that filing of the instant appeal with application for condonation of delay is an afterthought and therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The law is well settled

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]

section 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee - Whether Since there was a gross delay of 202 days in preferring SLP against said order and explanation offered for said delay was also not satisfactory and neither was it sufficient in law to condone same, application seeking condonation of delay was to be dismissed and, consequently, Special Leave Petition was also

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

4 -do- 689693 15/12/2016 17/01/2017 5 -do- 780771 15/01/2017 17/01/2017 6 -do- 919669 15/02/2017 17/02/2017 7 -do- 764078 15/03/2017 11/04/2017 8 -do- 361960 15/04/2017 02/05/2017 6034059 The AO disallowed Rs 60,34,059/-, invoking the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal

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

4. Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the genuine and unforeseen circumstances explained by the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing

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

4. Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the genuine and unforeseen circumstances explained by the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation. Regarding the 4-day delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the delay to be small and the assessee was willing to file an application if given an opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "142(1

THE P A C S NOH 1002,PACS VELVADAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The P.A.C.S Noh 1002 V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(5) Pacs Velvadam, Velvadam Post C.R. Building Mylavaram, Krishna District – 521230 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap8170G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 28 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 is a society rendering services and providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TANAKU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1) dated 20.12.2023. 4. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TETALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1) dated 20.12.2023. 4. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay