GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

short “Ld. DR”) objected to the seeking of the\ncondonation of the delay in filing the present appeal. It was submitted\nby the Ld. DR that as the delay involved in filing the appeal is inordinate,\ntherefore, the same does not merit to be condoned.\n4. We have thoughtfully considered the facts leading to the delay in\nfiling

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

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

Term Capital Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\n(assessee's share) framed the assessment.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide\nhis order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the same.\n5.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in\nappeal before

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Term Capital Gains (for short, “LTCG”) of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\n(assessee's share) framed the assessment.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide\nhis order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the same.\n5.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in\nappeal before

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

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

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:

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

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no\nreason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue as the facts of\nthe case could not be controverted by the Ld.AR. We therefore uphold the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is\ndismissed

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no\nreason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue as the facts of\nthe case could not be controverted by the Ld.AR. We therefore uphold the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is\ndismissed

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

KONATHALA RAJENDRA PRASAD,ANAKAPALLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in-limine

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.277/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Konathala Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.14-17-9/1 Ward-1 Rythu Sangam Veedhi Anakapalle Gavarapalem Anakapalle [Pan : Ahupk0522A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

short ‘Act’) dated 25.01.2016 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 with the delay of 1459 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and 2 I.T.A. No.277/Viz/2023, A.Y.2008-09 Konatala Rajendra Prasad, Anakapalle submitted that the appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 26.06.2019 ought to have been filed on or before 26.08.2019, but the appeal could