KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

b) of the Act was issued by the then ITO, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada on 28.02.2023. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2023. Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 was thereafter issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings

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

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

condoned the delay and allowed him to file his return of income under section 139(4) r.w.s 119(2)(b) of the Act for the subject year, but the assessee failed to furnish the same. 10. The AO based on the aforesaid facts holding a conviction that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the source

VARDHANAPU MANIKUMARI OF LATE EARNEST CHRISTOPHER VARDHANAPU,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (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’s husband, Shri Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu stated to have worked as pastor with Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur was in receipt of 300 sq.yds of land, valued at Rs.75,00,000/- as gift on 28.05.2013 without

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

56,277/-; and (iii) deduction under section 24(b): Rs.77,990/-. However, the Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao CIT(A) did not find favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee and dismissed his appeal. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

56,277/-; and (iii) deduction under section 24(b): Rs.77,990/-. However, the Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao CIT(A) did not find favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee and dismissed his appeal. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

MANNE KRISHNA KISHORE,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri Md. Afzal, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/01/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 10/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

GUMMADI SARASWATHI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 94 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 an individual filed her return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 05.12.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.2,27,030/-. The case of the assessee

RAMESH MANNAVA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16. Based on the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has purchased

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

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

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

INDIRA RANI MULPURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Which Caused The Delay. She Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate, Therefore, Pleaded To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing In The Interest Of Justice.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file her return of income for the A.Y.2017-18. It was observed by the department that the assessee has made cash deposits in her bank account during the F.Y.2016-17 amounting to Rs.19

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay of 161 days involved in filing the present appeal by the\nassessee before the Tribunal.\n10. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that as the assessee had failed to come\nforth with any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 11,00,000/-\nmade in her bank account, therefore

DWARAMPUDI KRSS SUBBIREDDY L/R OF DWARAMPUDI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

56,309/- but the said explanation did not find favour with the A.O. Accordingly, the A.O. determined the income vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019 at Rs. 15,04,580/-. 4 Dwarampudi K R S S Subbireddy, L/R of Dwarampudi Ramakrishna Reddy, 4. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed against the order passed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 07 days in filing the Revenue appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. the Andhra Sugars Limited is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and other chemical products and power generation, filed its return of income