GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condoning the delay by 77 days, ignoring the Bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condoning the delay by 77 days, ignoring the Bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condoning the delay by 77 days, ignoring the Bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. AASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and other sources filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 admitting a total income

SRI GOLUGURI NAGI REDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and other sources filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 admitting a total income

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right as he had acted only according to will

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

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.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

GULIPALLI SATISH,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 413/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gulipalli Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bobbili. Ward-1, Pan: Cbnpg3883K Vizianagaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

77,52,000/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened for the AY 2018-19 by issue of notice U/s. 148 dated 04/04/2022 after complying with the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/11/2023 calling for the details. However, the assessee has not submitted any details

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

CHAITANYA LEARNING ZONE PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअऩीऱसं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2021 (ननधधारणवषा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) M/S. Chaitanya Learning Zone Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd., Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaecc 6869 J (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Ss Sarat Chandra, Advocate प्रत्यधथीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasadarao, Sr. Ar

77,500/- and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 206 days. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee filed submissions seeking condonation

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of certain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents: (i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition of land from assessee dt. 04.02.2022. (ii). Purchase

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

SRIPADA SRIVALLABHA MAHA SAMSTANAM,PITHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION WARD), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.289/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sripada Srivallabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahasamsthanam Exemption Ward Pithapuram Rajahmundry Pan:Aadts8424P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vvs Narayana Medisetti राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. Impugned order dated 24-12-2019 under section 143(3) of 1.T. Act determining total income at Rs 1,46,25,654/- and raising a demand

VEMULAPALLI NAVEEN KISHORE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT(A)-1, , GUNTUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 504/VIZ/2018. The assessee is a partner in M/s. Vijaya Sai Constructions, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 4,95,280/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/sec. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

VEMULAPALLI NAVEEN KISHORE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT(A)-1, , GUNTUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 504/VIZ/2018. The assessee is a partner in M/s. Vijaya Sai Constructions, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 4,95,280/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/sec. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

VEMULAPALLI NAVEEN KISHORE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT(A)-1, , GUNTUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 504/VIZ/2018. The assessee is a partner in M/s. Vijaya Sai Constructions, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 4,95,280/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/sec. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred