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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

40,509/-, the same was determined by the AO/CPC, Bangalore at Rs. 27,57,118/-. 7. I find that the assessee aggrieved with the order of AO/CPC, Bangalore, passed under section 143(1) dated 11.01.2019, had carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who declined to condone the inordinate delay

SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

condone the delay of 20 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 is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn and filed its original return of income declaring a total loss

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:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Unit–4, Vijayawada, vide his letter dated 04.02.2019, observed that the assessee had made cash deposits

PADMADEVI BHANSALI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.520/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Padma Devi Bhansali Vs. Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Aevpb1105N] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 25.08.2022 with the delay of 40 days. The learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay in filing of the appeal by 40 days and did not condone

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, 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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

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

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

THE VAZRAPUKOTTURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.439/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Vazrapukotturu Primary V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan Agricultural Cooperative Credit Palakonda Road, Srikakulam – 532001 Society Limited Andhra Pradesh D.No. 12-3-71, Gandhi Nagar Kasibugga, Palasa, Srikakulam [Pan: Aadat1897J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

40,060/- claimed by the assessee under section 80P of the Act in the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act. 8. In this connection, at the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee has filed the condonation of Page No. 4 I.T.A.No.439/VIZ/2024 The Vazrapukotturu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited delay

POTLURI VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Potluri Venkata Nageswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Ward-2(4), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaohp 2167 F (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 08/07/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or any application, ……………..may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It implies that the delay of each day needs to be justified and there must

ANJAN DASGUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 3 Anjan Dasgupta vs. DCIT “1. That the appellant

SRI GURU RAJENDRA SURI JAIN ARADHANA BHAVAN TRUST,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.7/Viz/2025

section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 40 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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY vs. K.VENKATA RAJU, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.501/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Circle-2(1) D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Rajahmundry Kadiam Mandal Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.153/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.501/Viz/2019) (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Tax Kadiam Mandal Circle-2(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Scondonation Of Delay :

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), Rajahmundry is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. The CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation from the net profit estimated from contractual receipt. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have

BOMBAY GASLIGHT STORES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT ,ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Bombay Gaslight Stores Vs. Dcit/Acit 10-1-27/A, Asilmetta Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaab0207B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

40(b)(iv) of the Act in respect of interest and remuneration paid to the partners and made addition of the same. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) with the delay of 1008 days and filed condonation petition. Relying on various judicial precedents, the 3 I.T.A

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine. 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.10380/2016-17/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 and 10151/2017- 18/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 dated 29.01.2019 for the Assessment Year

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine. 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.10380/2016-17/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 and 10151/2017- 18/AC,C-1(1),VSP/2018-19 dated 29.01.2019 for the Assessment Year

SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KAKINADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.598/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Sri Chaitanya Educational Society Vs. Acit Chaitanya Nagar Central Circle-1 Kakinada Rajahmundry [Pan :Aabas4398D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

condone the delay. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)]-3, Visakhapatnam vide ITA No.71/2017-18/CIT-(A)/VSP/2018-19 dated 03.07.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2009-10. 2. In this case, all the grounds of appeal are related to the issue of confirming the addition of Rs.27,29,767/- pertaining

SRI KRISHNA GENERAL TRADING COMPANY,PONNURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.614/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Sri Krishna General Trading Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, Ward-1, Ponnuru, Guntur Dist. Bapatla. Pan: Aaifs 3783 L (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 as per directions of Pr. CIT under section 263 on objections raised by Audit party. The Ld. AO ought not to have concluded, without considering the appellant’s plea. 3. Any other ground may be sought at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. At the outset, it appears from the order

G M CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.508/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S G.M.Constructions Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Sunil Kumar Gautam Visakhapatnam 18-36-1, Kothasalipeta Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfg5978M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

condone the delay since the reason explained by the assessee is convincing and genuine. 2. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 [Pr.CIT]-1, Visakhapatnam vide F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VSP/263/2016-17 dated 27.03.2017 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 3. All the grounds of appeal are related to the order