JANAKI RAM BABJI RAO ANNAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 11 days in 3 filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income electronically on 09/12/2017 declaring a total income

RAJAJI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and estimated 45% of the gross receipts as income of the assessee. Page. No 2 ITA Nos. 436 & 437/VIZ/2025 Rajaji Educational Society 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee did not respond to the multiple opportunities provided

RAJAJI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and estimated 45% of the gross receipts as income of the assessee. Page. No 2 ITA Nos. 436 & 437/VIZ/2025 Rajaji Educational Society 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee did not respond to the multiple opportunities provided

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 145(3) without pointing out any defects in the audited books. 6. Arbitrary Estimation of Income Without Evidence: The AO estimated income at 8% of gross receipts without providing any industry benchmarks or supporting evidence. 7. Additional Ground (General Prayer): The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2015-16, the addition of Rs. 45,58,500/- was upheld. For AY 2020-21, the addition of Rs. 27,29,450/- for unexplained jewellery was also upheld, and the benefit of telescoping was denied.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections

HERMON EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the assessee society viz., Hermon Educational Society, Visakhapatnam is running a school by name Hermon School at KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. The assessee society filed it’s return of income for the impugned

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay in filing\nthe present appeal, and are of the view that as the same is not inordinate and is\nsupported by justifiable reason, therefore, the same merits condonation.\n24.\nComing to the merits of the case, we find that as stated by the Learned\nAuthorised Representatives, the issue involved in the present appeal remains the\nsame as was there

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 45,58,500/- made by the AO on account of 'on-money' from the sale of property, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2020-21, the addition of Rs. 27,29,450/- for unexplained jewellery was also

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay in filing\nthe present appeal, and are of the view that as the same is not inordinate and is\nsupported by justifiable reason, therefore, the same merits condonation.\n24.\nComing to the merits of the case, we find that as stated by the Learned\nAuthorised Representatives, the issue involved in the present appeal remains the\nsame as was there

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Before proceeding

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

THE ANIGANDLAPADU PACS LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(1)1 VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.300/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Anigandlapadu Pacs Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-1, Anigandlapadu Village Ward-1(1) Penuganchiprolu Post Vijayawada Penuganchiprolu Mandal Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7983Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, provides credit facilities to it’s members i.e. sanction of crop loans out of deposits collected from it’s members. It also provides services i.e. supply of fertilisers and manures, marketing

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, in the business of manufacturing edible oil in the name & style of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery filed return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 3 I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Sinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist. 30.10.2017, admitting total income

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

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

delayed, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as the requirement to issue notice cannot be dispensed with. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. S.G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Delhi) had, inter alia, held that where the assessee company had filed the return income

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay of 116 days in filing\nthe appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual. As per the information available with the\nDepartment, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has\ndeposited cash of Rs. 45

NAGARJUNA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.186/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Nagarjuna Hospitals Pvt. Ltd Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.8-102 Income Tax Kanuru, Vijayawada Circle-1(1) Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacn7476J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in running hospital, e-filed it’s return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 29.09.2015, admitting total income of Rs.1,45,36,030/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed return of income for A.Y.2015-16. It was noticed by the department that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.80,45,200/- in his bank account No.048301500633 maintained with ICICI

ASR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,TANUKU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contentions, submitted that the delay involved in the present case, too, in all fairness, be condoned. 11. Per contra, Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. CIT-DR”) objected to the seeking of the condonation of the delay by the assessee society. Elaborating