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

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

condoned. (The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.) In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund

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

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed on 27.03.2025. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 31.05.2025. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 20.06.2025 resulting in a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. 2. Sri Chigurupati Appa Rao is the Director

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

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

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

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

1) dated 28.09.2024 seeking registration under 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

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

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

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

40,100/- (Cr) available in his Current Account maintained with the above-mentioned company. It was, thus, observed by the AO that the assessee had, during the subject year, withdrawn an amount of Rs. 5,92,04,000/- over and above the credit balance available in his Current Account with the company. The AO, taking cognizance of the fact that

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.394 & 395/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

40-1-155, LGF MG Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [PAN:AEFPC1220F] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri ASRSS Siva Prasad, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.394 & 395/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

40-1-155, LGF MG Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [PAN:AEFPC1220F] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri ASRSS Siva Prasad, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश

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

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

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

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