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

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

In the result, the assessee's appeals for the AY 2014-15 to 2017-\n18 are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s.\n69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee\nand invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing\nthe same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.\n91,19,097/- 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 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

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

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

condone the delay of 346\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a cooperative society registered\nunder AP State Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act 1995 and has been\ncarrying 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

PAVAN KRANTI NADIMINTI,PM PALEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), 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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 303/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(4), Pan: Agxpn5603K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Muralidhar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 114 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. As per the information available on record, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has made cash deposits in his bank

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

SRI VIJAYA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY,CHALLAPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

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’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.258/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 ) Sri Vijaya Educational & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cultural Society, Vijayawada Ward-1, Road, Challapalli, Krishna Machilipatnam-521001, District – 521126, Andhra Krishna District, Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaias6018H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 43 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- society filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 20/12/2017 admitting NIL income after claiming exemption U/s. 10(23C)(iiiad