SRI BHUVANESWARI NILAYAM,TIRUMALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.519/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirumala Ward 1(1) Pan:Aawts0401P Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Uday & Gopi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2,Ahmedabad (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 15/02/2024 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 242 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned

condone the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 7 ITA No 519 of 2024 Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam Tirumala 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Charitable Trust, filed its return

BARIGALA SAROJA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3 Barigala Saroja vs. ITO 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee an individual. On verification of the AIMS Module of ITBA, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee made substantial cash deposits during

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 801 B(10) only in the year of completion of the project, especially so, for an assessee not following project completion method for accounting its income. If otherwise interpreted, it would be equivalent to forcing an assessee to follow a particular method of accounting, which would never have been the intention of legislation. Intention would only have been that

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 801 B(10) only in the year of completion of the project, especially so, for an assessee not following project completion method for accounting its income. If otherwise interpreted, it would be equivalent to forcing an assessee to follow a particular method of accounting, which would never have been the intention of legislation. Intention would only have been that

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 801 B(10) only in the year of completion of the project, especially so, for an assessee not following project completion method for accounting its income. If otherwise interpreted, it would be equivalent to forcing an assessee to follow a particular method of accounting, which would never have been the intention of legislation. Intention would only have been that

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SRI GOTTUMUKKALA VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

SHRI G VIJAYA RAGHAVA RAJU,KAKINADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 270 days in filing all the instant appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, we shall take ITA No. 33/Viz/2022 (AY: 2013-14) as a lead appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 4 6. Briefly stated the facts

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

SAMBASIVA RAO MUPPERA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR., GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 133(6) of the Act. However, the neither the assessee nor the bank authorities furnishd any information as called for by the Ld.AO. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 23/03/2022 was issued in the form of draft 4 assessment order and in response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted his reply. On perusal

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

M/S MIRACLE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS (I) PVT., LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.43/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09) M/S. Miracle Software Systems (I) Vs. Dcit, Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcm 4988 R (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sashtri, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of software development, Business Process Outsourcing and consultancy 3 services, filed the return of income for the AY 2008-09 admitting a total

MUPPALLA PADMAVATHI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 396/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Muppalla Padmavathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 2(1) D.No. 8-188 Topu Kornepadu Guntur Medical College Road Vatticherukuru Mandal Guntur – 522004 Andhra Pradesh Guntur - 522017 [Pan:Foipm1273L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 24.10.2024. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 169 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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito (Exemptions), Vs. M/S. Agricultural Market Rajahmundry. Committee, Siddhantham Road, Market Yard, Akiveedu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aakfa 8420 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. C.O.No. 129/VIZ/2018 (M/s. Agricultural Market Committee) 5. On being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in assessee’s own case for the earlier year, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion