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

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

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

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

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of certain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents: (i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition of land from assessee dt. 04.02.2022. (ii). Purchase

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Us :

43B is to allow genuine claims where payments are made before filing the return of income. 4. That the learned authorities have failed to appreciate the nature and purpose of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The amendment clarifies the treatment of employees' contributions prospectively and does not apply to the appellant's case for the relevant assessment

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Us :

43B is to allow genuine claims where payments are made before filing the return of income. 4. That the learned authorities have failed to appreciate the nature and purpose of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The amendment clarifies the treatment of employees' contributions prospectively and does not apply to the appellant's case for the relevant assessment

OURS YOUTH CLUB,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an Association of Persons, registered as Society is engaged in the business of supply of manpower to the Government Sectors like municipalities, hospitals etc. It receives payments from such organizations for supply of manpower and the society in turn pays

BHARATH YUVA SANKSHEMA SANGHAM,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham V. Income Tax Officer 20B-7-21/1 Income Tax Office C/O. Ayyappa Medicals Eluru, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh Gandhi Nagar, Eluru West Godavari District – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aidpg1046K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condone the delay of 19 Page No. 2 Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham 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’s society is engaged in providing man power services to various government departments. During the year under consideration, the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Tulasi Seeds Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Standard House, Beside Sbi Door No. 6-4-6, Tulasi House Nagarampalem, Guntur – 522004 4/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 3 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 being Private Limited Company engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid sowing seeds, filed its return of income

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

COSMIC POWER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay of 28 days, which was condoned. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that disallowance of employees (M/s. Cosmic Power systems Pvt. Ltd.) share of contribution of PF on account of late payment, even though the same were paid before the end of the previous year in most of the instances and in any case all were paid before