THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, , GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132(4

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132(4

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132(4

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132(4

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132(4

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132(4

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

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:

45,079/- i.e. @ 8% of Rs. 9,05,63,502/-. As the assessee firm had disclosed its income of Rs.19,83,720/-, therefore, the A.O. restricted the addition to the balance amount of Rs. 52,61,360/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Although the assessee firm was put to notice

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

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 142(1) was issued on 11.09.2021. In response,\nassessee furnished his reply on 23.09.2021 by furnishing the relevant\ninformation required along with evidences in support of his claims. In response\nto the show-cause notice, assessee submitted his reply regarding the investments\nin gold and silver jewellery. Ld. AO after considering the CBDT Circular 1916\ndated 11.05.1994 found that

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

4\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan Rao Valluru --\nby the assessee as non-est/invalid. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO had\nthereafter issued to the assessee a notice under section 148 of the Act dated\n28.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of\nincome declaring LTCG

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

section 142(1) was issued on 11.09.2021. In response,\nassessee furnished his reply on 23.09.2021 by furnishing the relevant\ninformation required along with evidences in support of his claims. In response\nto the show-cause notice, assessee submitted his reply regarding the investments\nin gold and silver jewellery. Ld. AO after considering the CBDT Circular 1916\ndated 11.05.1994 found that

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

4\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan Rao Valluru\nby the assessee as non-est/invalid. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO had\nthereafter issued to the assessee a notice under section 148 of the Act dated\n28.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of\nincome declaring LTCG

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 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)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 2 I.T.A. No.436/Viz/2019, A.Y.2015-16 M/s M.K.Aqua Hatchery, Thondangi 2. All the grounds in this appeal are related to the addition of Rs.2,12,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the CIT(A. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,90,84,000/- made towards additional price/withheld price of milk produced. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

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