BRITG FOUNDATION,VIZIANAGARAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.208/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2022-23 To 2026-27) Britg Foundation V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) 22-14-12, Kotlamadappa Street Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. L.B. Stadium Vizianagaram H.O. Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Telangana Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaetb5357K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Sanjeevarao, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

condone the delay of 90 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, assessee filed an e-application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) issued notice to the assessee on 08.06.2024 in respect

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.237/Viz/2020, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SRIKAKAULAM vs. SRI VASAVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED`, RAJAM,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.606/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs M/S Sri Vasavi Polymers P.Ltd. Ward-3 S.No.125 & 126, Anthakapalli Srikakulam Rajam [Pan : Aaecs1849J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020 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)]-9, Hyderabad In Ita No.10300/Cit(A)-9, Hyd/2017-18 Dated 09.08.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. With The Delay Of 1 Day. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition & Submitted That The Delay Was Due To The 2

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

9 Bayye Chandra Kumar Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018, dated 08th April, 2024, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court based on a harmonious consideration of the provisions of law, had laid down a set of conditions on the touchstone of which the delay involved in filing

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1) (TDS), VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD., TIRUPATHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452-454/Viz/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Southern Power Circle-3(1) (Tds) Distribution Company Of Vijayawada A.P.Limited Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Kesavavayana Gunta Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1217/H/2010,517/Viz/2019 &518/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) M/S Southern Power Distribution Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Company Of A.P.Limited Income Tax Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Circle-3(1) (Tds) Kesavavayana Gunta Vijayawada Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.P.Rama Swami, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

vi) of the Income tax Act and held that the transmission charges and SLDC charges paid by the assessee for the use of transmission network owned by AP Transco fall within the definition of royalty. Thus, held that the provisions of section 194J are squarely applicable for deduction of tax at source. 8 I.T.A. No.452-454/Viz/2010 and 1217/H/2010, 517/Viz/2019 and 518/Viz/2019

M/S. vs. R INFOTECH ,,VISAKHAPATNAMVS.THE ITO ,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act originally on 30.8.2010 accepting the income returned. The assessee filed return of income admitting total income of ` 2,50,220/- on 29.8.2008. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 29.2.2012 for verification

M/S. vs. R INFOTECH ,,VISAKHAPATNAMVS.THE ITO ,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act originally on 30.8.2010 accepting the income returned. The assessee filed return of income admitting total income of ` 2,50,220/- on 29.8.2008. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 29.2.2012 for verification

ANJAN DASGUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 249(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 3 Anjan Dasgupta vs. DCIT “1. That the appellant has wrongly declared the total income in the return filed U/s. 139(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs. KANDULA LAKSHUMMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KADAPA

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Smt.Kandula Income Tax (Exemptions) Lakshumma Memorial Vijayawada Educational Society D.No.3/429 Raja Reddy Street Kadapa [Pan :Aadas4432Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.91/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.179/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Vs. M/S Smt.Kandula Lakshumma Deputy Commissioner Of Memorial Educational Society Income Tax (Exemptions) D.No.3/429 Vijayawada Raja Reddy Street Kadapa [Pan :Aadas4432Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओ रसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020

9 I.T.A. No.179/Viz/2018 and CO No.91/Viz/2018, A.Y.2013-14 M/s Smt. Kandula Lakshumma Memorial Educational Society, Kadapa pressing for the payment and the payment was finally settled through Sri K.Sivananda Reddy. Thus, the assessee has paid the sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards the amount due to Sri K.Sreeramulu and Sri K.Sivananda Reddy and no amount was paid to Sri K.Sivananda Reddy

SRIKANTH ATLURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TXA OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Srikanth Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 30-13/1-18, Durgaagraharam Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpa5568H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 51 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, assessee being a Non-Resident Individual filed his return of income on 30.09.2021 admitting a total income of Rs. 31,51,720/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. While

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

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession of evidence for some of the deductions claimed by him. Thereafter

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession of evidence for some of the deductions claimed by him. Thereafter

SAGARA VIKASA MUTUALLY AIDED COOP THRIFT SOCIETY LTD ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.235/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Vs. Income Tax Officer Thrift Society Ltd., Ward-2(1) Opp. Sun School Visakhapatnam Near Vuda Layout, Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacas9620H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

VI-A under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section(a) of section 139 of the Act. Since the assessee has filed the return of income beyond the time specified u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Ld.DR held that the AO has correctly applied

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeal though the delay was due to the circumstances beyond the control and with no comments on the grounds of appeal. The Andhra Pradesh high court held in the case of Pinjari Khasim v Chanda Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 698, decided on 28-03-2023 that “…. ordinarily the litigation should not be terminated

TRANSTROY INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.162 & 163/Viz/2015, 470/Viz/2016, 509/Viz/2017 & 193/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Transstroy (India) Ltd. Income Tax Guntur Circle-2(1) Guntur [Pan : Aabct4226B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.193/Viz/2015, 430/Viz/2016, 529/Viz/2017 & 248/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Transstroy (India) Ltd. Asst.Commissioner Of Guntur Income Tax Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aabct4226B] Guntur (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

condone the delay. 3. After hearing the both the parties we are of the view that the reasons given by the AO for delay in filing the appeal are neither convincing nor satisfactory. The AO has to explain the reasons for delay on day to day 3 I.T.A. No.162 & 163/Viz/2015, 470/Viz/2016, 509/Viz/2017 and 193/Viz/2018 and I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2015, 430/Viz/2016, 529/Viz/2017 & 248/Viz/2018