PARASURAM KESARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 56,57,210/- towards lorry hire charges. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a notice U/s. 148 of the Act on 11/12/2015 which was served on 15/12/2015. In response, the assessee filed his revised return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 11/1/2016 declaring a total income

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.394 & 395/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

57 of the Act, accordingly, disallowed the same and added back to the total income of the assessee. While passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.1,11,746/- being 50% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income and passed

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.394 & 395/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

57 of the Act, accordingly, disallowed the same and added back to the total income of the assessee. While passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.1,11,746/- being 50% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income and passed

ANIL KUMAR VELLAGA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

57,819/- by making addition of Rs.3,03,30,894/-\nunder section 69A of the Act and Rs.8,62,055/- as addition on account of\ndisallowances of Exemption / deduction under the head salary income and\nRs.1,44,64,870/- as addition on account of lottery income under the head\nincome from other sources.\n3. On being aggrieved by the order

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

57 of the Act. After considering the details furnished by the assessee, Page. No 2 I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/VIZ/2025 Jain Babulal Champatlal Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 13.03.2021 by disallowing an interest of Rs.8,18,571/- (Rs.4,70,250/ + Rs.3,35,404/- + Rs.12,917/-) observing that the interest

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

57 of the Act. After considering the details furnished by the assessee, Page. No 2 I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/VIZ/2025 Jain Babulal Champatlal Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 13.03.2021 by disallowing an interest of Rs.8,18,571/- (Rs.4,70,250/ + Rs.3,35,404/- + Rs.12,917/-) observing that the interest

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

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

section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that

COASTAL ENGINEERING & EQUIPEMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 138/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Coastal Engineering & Equipments V. Income Tax Officer – Circle 1(1) (India) Private Limited Income Tax Office 30-1-1/7, Flat No. 201 Pratyakshakar Bhawan Neeladri Complex Mvp Double Road, South Jail Road, Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaecc3619C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is a company filed its return of income on 27.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.20,87,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny with the reason "Change in method of Accounting". During the course

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,KHANDAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, THANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Rajamahendravaram in Appeal No.10021&22/2018-19/CIT(A)/RJY dated 06.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Rajamahendravaram in Appeal No.10021&22/2018-19/CIT(A)/RJY dated 06.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM ,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, , TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Rajamahendravaram in Appeal No.10021&22/2018-19/CIT(A)/RJY dated 06.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals

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

KANTHETY NAGA RAMA LAKSHMI VARA PRASAD,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.415 & 416/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kanthety Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad V. Ito – Ward – 1 D.No. 25/524-A/5, Ramamani General Merchants Income Tax Office Jagannadhapuram, Parsapet, Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aldpk2888A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 20.12.2018. 4. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 199 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed

KANTHETY NAGA RAMA LAKSHMI VARA PRASAD,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.415 & 416/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kanthety Naga Rama Lakshmi Vara Prasad V. Ito – Ward – 1 D.No. 25/524-A/5, Ramamani General Merchants Income Tax Office Jagannadhapuram, Parsapet, Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aldpk2888A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 20.12.2018. 4. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 199 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed

MUPPALLA PADMAVATHI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 396/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Muppalla Padmavathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 2(1) D.No. 8-188 Topu Kornepadu Guntur Medical College Road Vatticherukuru Mandal Guntur – 522004 Andhra Pradesh Guntur - 522017 [Pan:Foipm1273L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 24.10.2024. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed

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

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

57,712/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 55,200/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: - “6. Adjudication:- 6.1 I have considered the facts of the case and examined

DHANALAKSHMI TEXTADE INDIA PVT LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

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

section 249(2) of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal on 23/08/2021 and therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It was further observed that the delay in filing the appeal was not mentioned in Form-35 nor filed the condonation application separately. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since

NYMISH KUNDUM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 3 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income on 18/11/2016 for the AY 2016-17 declaring total income