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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was\nenhanced from 30% to 60%, was applicable only to the transactions from 01.4.2017 and\ncould not be applied retrospectively. The Ld.AR submitted that the Tribunal in its\naforesaid orders had specifically observed that the higher rate of tax @60% under\nsection 115BBE of the Act was applicable

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 7,21,890/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny of assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 8. During the course of assessment

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 65 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-firm is carrying on business of bullion trading in gold and silver and trading in gold ornaments and silver articles and filed its return of income

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay and proceed to decide the\npresent appeal on merits.\n4.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\norders passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 02-12-2019 of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 02-12-\n2019, that was confirmed

SRIDHAR YARLAGADDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sridhar Yarlagadda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Abdpy4072 G Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the reasons stated therein, ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed off on merits. 2. Your Appellant submits that the entire cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization period is out of the cash withdrawal in the earlier period. Hence, cannot be said to be unexplained under section 68

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,470/-. The AO completed the assessment, making significant additions based on these transactions and other sources.", "held": "The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in-limine due to a delay in filing. The assessee appealed this decision, arguing that the delay was due to a lack of awareness of appeal procedures and time taken for professional consultations

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

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 I.T.A. No.299/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, doing wholesale Kirana business under the name and style of Sri Sai Deekshitha Enterprises filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 29.12.2017, admitting an income of Rs.10

TIRUMALA RAO BATTU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

68 of the IT Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained cash credits, without considering submissions made by the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,39,350/-u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained investment, ignoring the explanations furnished by the assessee. 5. The authorities below have failed to discharge

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

PADMA MINNAKURI,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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. 106/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Padma Minnakuri V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-1(1) Guntur - 522001 D.No.26-20-317 Andhra Pradesh 10Th Line, Sivaram Nagar Guntur 522004, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bdlpm7530E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 days in filing the appeal. F. Therefore, due to such above reasons and also due to inadequate knowledge about the I.T. Provisions, the entire process has caused delay in filing the appeal in time. 5. As there was no malafide intention and delay was only due to non observation of receipt of the appellate order of the Learned Commissioner

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VARUN OGILI, NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 admitting a total income of Rs. 24,66,800/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed return of income for A.Y.2015-16. It was noticed by the department that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.80,45,200/- in his bank account No.048301500633 maintained with ICICI

MUTHAVARAPU SRINIVASA BABU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condone the delay of 503 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 is an individual deriving income from salary, House property, Partnership income, income from Swarna Gardens (Kalyanamandapam) filed his return of income

KANISHKA F&B,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from the affidavit are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 193 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 29/09/2018 declaring a loss of Rs. 26,91,175/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

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 149 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 is an individual filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 27/03/2018 admitting a total income of Rs.6

ANGADALA RAMAKRISHNA,VELERU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

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.242/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramakrishna Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-121/B, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu, Ward-1, Krishna District-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Brwpa7639F (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 : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 207 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. For the AY 2017-18, the assessee did not file his return of income. As per the information available with

SRI LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.285/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 26-3-560, Sln Towers, Income Tax, Iv Floor, Bv Nagar, Mini Bypass Central Circle-1, Road, Nellore – 524004. Guntur. Pan: Abofs2978J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 15 days in 3 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 being a partnership firm is engaged in the business of electrical fabrication contracts. A survey operation U/s. 133A