KONDA VENKATESWARA REDDY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3),, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Konda Venkateswara Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.44-15-97 Ward-3(3) Lenin Nagar, Gunadala Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Akmpv9138J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Karthik Manickam, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada Dated 10.02.2020 With The Delay Of 34 Days For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Stating That The Delay Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Lockdown Declared By The State Government. There Was No Malafide Intention In Filing The Appeal

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, did not file his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). Based on the information available on record, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee

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

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

Term Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) of Rs. 2,37,03,359/- derived from the year under consideration. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, wherein his total income was determined at Rs. 2,43,33,430/- after allowing set-off of only an amount of Rs. 71,109/- [as against

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Us:

term capital gain at Rs.1,60,917/- 8. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 9,74,470/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 10. As the appeal filed by the assessee before

KOSURU KRISHNAVENI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

capital gain arising from the sale of the house. 3. The assessing officer reopened the case of the appellant for A.Y.2016-17 on the ground that the appellant purchased a house for Rs.62,43,000 and also invested Rs.9,00,000 in fixed deposits and did not file the return of income for the relevant year. The appellant was not aware

LATE RAMA KUMARI MUNNA REPRESENTED BY SHRI SHIVAYYA MUNNA HUSBAND LEGAL HEIR,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Term Capital Gains” (for short, “LTCG”). 4. The legal heir of the assessee (since deceased) has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dated 26.12.2024 before us. 5. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 6. Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA, the learned

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

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

short, “Ld. CIT-DR”) objected to the seeking of condonation of the delay involved in the present appeal filed by the assessee company. 5. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both parties regarding the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal before us. Although we are of the firm conviction that

SRI SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN LOKHANDWALA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A)-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bles.A.No. 02/Viz/2018 & Shabbir Kutubuddin Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Lokhandwala, D.No. 28-9-85, Visakhapatnam. Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Abmpl 2743 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,31,890/-. The return filed by the assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny

SIRIPURAPU VENKATA RAMANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Siripurapu Venkata Ramana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.37-7-10, Opp.5Th Town Police Ward-2(4) Station, Satyanagar Visakhapatnam Manchukondvari Thota Sivalayam Street Visakhapatnam [Pan : Cptps9594D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2 I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2018. A.Y.2009-10 S.Venkata Ramana Rao., Visakhapatnam This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr.CIT]-1, Visakhapatnam vide F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VSP/263/2017-18 dated 29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2009-10. 2. In this case, the assessee is an individual drawing salary from Hindustan

KAVULURU LAKSHMI NARAYANA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA

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.464/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-7-10A, Donka Road Ward-2(2) Mogalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aajhk5298R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-2, Guntur In Ita No.372/Gnt/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Dated19.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2014-15 With The Delay Of 36 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Sickness Of 2

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal : In respect of addition of Rs.5,00,000/- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred both in facts and law in sustaining the addition without considering the fact that the family member's agricultural incomes were deposited

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

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

short, the assessee has pleaded that the M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni amount received by the assessee was a tied up grant or an amount received for a specific purpose as being capital in nature. In support of this proposition, the assessee has cited / placed reliance on several decisions of various benches of the ITAT, wherein it has been

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

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

short, the assessee has pleaded that the M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni amount received by the assessee was a tied up grant or an amount received for a specific purpose as being capital in nature. In support of this proposition, the assessee has cited / placed reliance on several decisions of various benches of the ITAT, wherein it has been

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

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

short, the assessee has pleaded that the M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni amount received by the assessee was a tied up grant or an amount received for a specific purpose as being capital in nature. In support of this proposition, the assessee has cited / placed reliance on several decisions of various benches of the ITAT, wherein it has been