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

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

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

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 of Rs. 3

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

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

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, emerges from the record. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that in a case where the re-assessment proceedings are initiated by the AO based on a notice issued under section 148 of the Act, there is no further obligation cast upon him to thereafter issue a separate notice

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": [ "153A", "144", "143(2)", "69A", "132", "143(3

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

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

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

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

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

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:

3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019, wherein the income of the assessee was determined after making two disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance of penalty expenses: Rs. 49,060/- and (ii). disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of the employees’ share of contribution towards Provident Fund: Rs. 16,382/-. 4. Thereafter, the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, based out at VSEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, is engaged in the manufacturing and export of wide range of herbal extracts, filed

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

condoned the delay. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the appeal filed on 06.03.2023 would be deemed to have been filed within the statutory period. Consequently, it will be presumed that the appellate proceedings were pending when the registration under section Page No. 4 I.T.A.No.358/VIZ/2024 Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple 12A was granted. Therefore, the assessee is entitled

KRISHNA CHAITANYA DURGASI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Blekrishna Chaitanya Durgasi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Eluru Flat No. 507, Om Sai Residency Huda Trade Center Behind Punjab National Bank Lingampally, Hyderabad – 500019 Telangana Pan: Ahkpd6655R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee and medical records as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 71 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay