GANESH TRANSPORTS,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

85,330/-. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 179 days. Ld. CIT(A) by relying on various judicial pronouncements did not consider the petition for condonation of delay, thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved by the order

GANESH TRANSPORTS,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

85,330/-. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 179 days. Ld. CIT(A) by relying on various judicial pronouncements did not consider the petition for condonation of delay, thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved by the order

THE CHINAOGIRALA PACS LTD,CHINAOGIRALA VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GUDIVADA, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.296/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinaogirala Village, Ward-1, Vuyyuru Mandal, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521301. Andha Pradesh-521245. Pan: Aacat 8188 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

85,71,420/-, Rs. 47,82,069/- is interest on investments and the balance of Rs. 37,89,351/- is interest earned on loans and advances given to its members. The assessee has also furnished the calculation of 4 deduction U/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO did not consider the submissions made by the assessee and denied

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS),, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTE, , PENUGONDA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito (Exemptions), Vs. M/S. Agricultural Market Rajahmundry. Committee, Sidhantam Road Market Yard, Penugonda, West Godavari District Pan No. Aaala 0388 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a statutory body established under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live stocks) Markets Act, 1966. The ld.CIT, Rajahmundry granted registration u/s. 12AA to the assessee from 22.07.1997. For the Assessment Year 2003-04, assessee claimed exemption of its income under the provisions

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER ININCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing the same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 91,19,097/- against the returned income

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

85,010/- in his Current Account bearing number 225811100000034 maintained with Andhra Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India) but had not filed his return of income for the said year, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 03.04.2022 was issued by the A.O. 3. As the assessee

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing the same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 91,19,097/- against the returned income

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing the same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 91,19,097/- against the returned income

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing the same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 91,19,097/- against the returned income

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing the same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 91,19,097/- against the returned income

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

AMMA VAYOVRUDHA SEVASADA NAM,KESARAPALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Amma Vayovrudha Sevasada Vs. Income Tax Officer Nam, Kesarapalli. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaata 4192 R Rajahmundry. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Madhusudan, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

85% as stipulated by law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that there is no income chargeable to tax as per the mandatory provisions contained in the statute and his basic legal issue was brushed aside in limine denying the substantial justice. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case as recorded in the memorandum

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,,AKIVIDU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Agricultural Market Committee, Vs. Income Tax Officer Akividu (Exemptions) West Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry [Pan : Aakfa8420C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. Grounds of Appeal : 1. The order in ITA No.10057/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2015-16 dt.29.01.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur in PAN : AAKFA8420C, for the asst.year 2006-07 is contrary to law, the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 140/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited D.No. 49-12-33 Lalitha Temple Street Lalitha Nagar, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadas2078L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Income Tax Office Pratyakshakar Bhavan Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar : 06.02.2025 : 20.02.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Vide Din & Order No.

condone the delay of 346 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 a cooperative society registered under AP State Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act 1995 and has been carrying the business of credit among the members

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

BALA VENKATA SHIVA SATYA NAGA RAJU MANTENA,KALLA MANDALAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Raju Mantena Bhimavaram 2-272/3, Malavani Thippa West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Kaluvapudi – 534236 Kalla Mandalam West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aocpm1009D] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.174/VIZ/2024 Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Raju Mantena 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee has not filed his return of income under section

ASR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,TANUKU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

85% of its gross receipts, which, thus, resulted to a deficit/shortfall in the application of funds of Rs. 36,24,928/-, as under: 4 ASR Educational Society, Tanuku Accordingly, the Pr. CIT, vide his Show Cause Notice (SCN), dated 30- 03-2021, called upon the assessee society to explain why the aforesaid surplus of Rs. 36,92,928/- (supra