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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 7. The only issue emanating from the grounds of appeal is denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act by the revenue and the assessee is entitled for exemption 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. On this issue, Ld.Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR

RATNA KUMARI KOPPISETTY,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 411/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratna Kumari Koppisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 3-11-A/3, Recharlapeta Income Tax Office, 11-11-1 3Rd Floor, Sanjivi Hospital Complex Military Colony Ramaraopeta – 533004 Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Asdpk7729B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 15.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

section 143(1) of the Act. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee in the backdrop of the material available on record. In our view, there is substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee during

FOCUS TRANS TECH SHIPPING PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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. 179/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2019-20) Focus Transtech Shipping Private Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Limited Circle-3(1) Flat No.402, Level 4, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcf3074H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kamasastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 16.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

54,17,543/-. The Central Processing Center (CPC) sent a communication of adjustment 143(1)(a) on 10.05.2019 of Rs.7,13,654/- towards PF, ESI and profit on sale of vehicle. The CPC passed an order u/s 143(1) without considering the submissions made by the assessee. The assessee has submitted that there were payments reported in 3CD Annexure

SRI MANDAVA NARESH,VIJAYAWADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Mandava Naresh Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.14/9, Korukollu Income Tax Kaikalur Vijayawada Charge [Pan : Ahmpn2074J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041046029(1) Dated 19.03.2022 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 With The Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That He Resides In A 2

delay of 69 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving commission from trading in fish, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 21.10.2017, admitting total income of Rs.8,54,750/-. The 3 I.T.A. No.144/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada case has been

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SIVA JYOTHI PALAM, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 24 days in 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 having income from salary and income from house property besides income from capital gains filed her return of income

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

BABU RAO SAHUKARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.327/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Babu Rao Sahukari Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) 24-107-54/1 Visakhapatnam – 530020 C/O. Srikar Sai Medical Agencies Andhra Pradesh Gonthivanipalem Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Efnps1341E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Muralidhar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 148 of the Act. Assessee while acknowledging the date of service of the assessment order as 17.03.2023 filed the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) on 13.09.2023 thereby belatedly filed appeal after a period of 179 days. Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has not filed any condonation petition and also not responded to any of the notices issued and therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

GADDE KISHNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

delay is condoned. (Gadde Kishan & Another) For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 4. 367/VIZ/2019. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs.55,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

GADDE HARI PRASADA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

delay is condoned. (Gadde Kishan & Another) For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 4. 367/VIZ/2019. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs.55,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

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

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay is condoned. 2. The assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds along with Form No.36. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct in law or on facts in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act though the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay is condoned. 2. The assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds along with Form No.36. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct in law or on facts in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act though the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment

SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KAKINADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.598/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Sri Chaitanya Educational Society Vs. Acit Chaitanya Nagar Central Circle-1 Kakinada Rajahmundry [Pan :Aabas4398D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

condone the delay. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)]-3, Visakhapatnam vide ITA No.71/2017-18/CIT-(A)/VSP/2018-19 dated 03.07.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2009-10. 2. In this case, all the grounds of appeal are related to the issue of confirming the addition of Rs.27,29,767/- pertaining

PATAKAMUIRI CECIL,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , NARASARAOPET

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.9/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-14) Pathakamuri Cecil Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-159/79, Ravipadu Road Ward-1 Narasaraopet Narasaraopet Guntur [Pan :Ajxpp2406R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.24,77,367/- u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has purchased the property in Narsaraopet town old survey No.464, T.S.No