BANTU PILLI GOVINDARAO,ANANDAPURAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

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.306/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Bantu Pilli Govindarao Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 1-276, Vemulavalasa Income Tax Bpv Kallalu, Anandapuram Range-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Alipg7088F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had made transactions for sale of immovable properties and accepted cash in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, a penalty of Rs.55,91

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)

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 of Rs. 6,09,797/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 07/03/2022. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter

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)

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 of Rs. 6,09,797/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 07/03/2022. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter

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)

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 of Rs. 6,09,797/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 07/03/2022. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter

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)

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 of Rs. 6,09,797/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 07/03/2022. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter

OURS YOUTH CLUB,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an Association of Persons, registered as Society is engaged in the business of supply of manpower to the Government Sectors like municipalities, hospitals etc. It receives payments from such organizations for supply of manpower and the society in turn pays

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, , GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

VELAGA SIVA PARVATHI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

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

condone\nthe delay of 82 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to\nadjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n4.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual filed return of\nincome on 24.03.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.1,16,287/-. Subsequently,\nthe case was selected for limited scrutiny through

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 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, a firm, based out at VSEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, is engaged in the manufacturing and export of wide range of herbal extracts, filed

BHARATH YUVA SANKSHEMA SANGHAM,ELURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham V. Income Tax Officer 20B-7-21/1 Income Tax Office C/O. Ayyappa Medicals Eluru, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh Gandhi Nagar, Eluru West Godavari District – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aidpg1046K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 21.03.2021. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 1.1. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. The Revenue has raised the common grounds for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that all the grounds

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 1.1. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. The Revenue has raised the common grounds for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that all the grounds

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 1.1. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. The Revenue has raised the common grounds for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that all the grounds