SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

loss of Rs.2,20,13,789/- on 21.10.2020 for the A.Y.2020-21. As per the Form-3CD filed for the A.Y. 2020-21 the statutory auditor of the Company has certified that the following payments were made by the assessee company on which tax at source was not deducted as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Amount

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

Bench: Us:

loss of time, had taken the necessary steps, and filed the present appeal on 23.01.2025, which by the time involved a delay of 516 days. 6 Bayye Chandra Kumar 9. The Ld. AR, based on the aforesaid facts of that had resulted to the delay involved in the present appeal filed before the Tribunal, submitted, that as the same

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

set-off of carry forward loss was disallowed to the extent of Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota Rs.2,36,32,250/- in the intimation issued by the A.O/CPC under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2020. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as the assessee, despite having been offered

THE SALURU GIRIJAN CO OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,SALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

loss of time had thereafter taken necessary steps and assailed the order passed by the A.O. u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06.09.2022, before the CIT(A) which, however, by that time involved a delay of 344 days. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the appeal had occasioned for bona fide reasons, therefore

THE SALUR GIRIJAN CO OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

loss of time had thereafter taken necessary steps and assailed the order passed by the A.O. u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06.09.2022, before the CIT(A) which, however, by that time involved a delay of 344 days. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the appeal had occasioned for bona fide reasons, therefore

TIRUMALASETTY NAGARAJU,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 190/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Tirumalasetty Nagaraju, V. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Guntur. Pan: Aeupn1070R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

loss of Rs. 14,70,349/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act on 19/07/2014 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the various business aspects. Accordingly, the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 29/01/2015 by estimating the income from wine business @ 5% on the cost of goods

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

loss of time filed the appeal with the CIT(A) on 20.02.2020, which by the time involved a delay of 26 days. The Ld.AR submitted that though the delay of 26 days involved in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) had crept in because of the bonafide reasons and not on account of any lackadaisical approach

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHARIEF AZIZULLA,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department and the cross objection filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

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

loss and severe hardship in case the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal has not been condoned. C.O.No. 154/VIZ/2019 (Aharief Azizulla) 3. Ld.AR did not refute the claim of the Revenue Department. 4. Having considered the contentions and submissions of the Revenue Department to the effect that Pr.CIT-1, Visakhapatnam is also holding the charge of two divisions

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of 5 Ganesh Kumar Paidi Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 114 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

loss of time, filed the present appeal on 11.07.2025,\nwhich, by the time involved a delay of 161 days. The Ld.AR submitted that as the delay\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.No.428/VIZ/2025\nSriLakshmi Devireddy-\nin filing the present appeal had crept in not because of any callous or lackadaisical\napproach of the assessee but for the aforesaid bonafide reasons, therefore

NATA RAJA TRADERS,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Nata Raja Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aaefn2642P Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Loss Account as income. While making payments, the exporters / buyers / traders have applied the provisions of section 194Q of the Act and 194A of the Act for delayed payments, if any. The assessee had mentioned these details in column 14(IV) of the P & L Account. However, while processing the assessee’s return of income, the Ld. AO / CPC disallowed

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

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

Bench: Us:

setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of the delay of 166 days by the Tribunal, had observed that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2 Guntur in ITA No.56/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2011-12 dated 29.11.2018, CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.188/2017-18,ACIT,C-1-Rjy/CIT(A)-11/Hyd and CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad Appeal No.189/2017-18/ACIT

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. SIRIUS OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, cross objections of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521 /Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Sirius Overseas Private Circle-1 Limited Eluru D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Velpur, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.142/Viz/2019 To 144/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.521/Viz/2019 To 523/Viz/2019) M/S Sirius Overseas Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-152, Rice Mill Street Income Tax Velpur, Tanuku Mandal Circle-1, Eluru West Godavari District [Pan : Aafcs5054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit(Dr) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध कीतधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 24 .09.2021

delay in filing the cross objections is condoned. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2 Guntur in ITA No.56/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2011-12 dated 29.11.2018, CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.188/2017-18,ACIT,C-1-Rjy/CIT(A)-11/Hyd and CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad Appeal No.189/2017-18/ACIT

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

loss of time, filed the present\nappeal on 07.08.2025, which, by the time involved a delay of 403 days.\n14.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that as the\nassessee had throughout remained under a bonafide belief that pursuant to the\norder passed by the A.O under section 154 of the Act, dated 09.08.2021, wherein\nbased

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 I.T.A. No.299/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, doing wholesale Kirana business under the name and style of Sri Sai Deekshitha Enterprises filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 29.12.2017, admitting an income of Rs.10

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