ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. These issues are dealt with by us while adjudicating the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 (AY 2018-19) and ITA No. 227/Viz/2022 (AY 2019-20) and held that with regard to late remittance of contribution under

GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. These issues are dealt with by us while adjudicating the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 (AY 2018-19) and ITA No. 227/Viz/2022 (AY 2019-20) and held that with regard to late remittance of contribution under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. These issues are dealt with by us while adjudicating the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 (AY 2018-19) and ITA No. 227/Viz/2022 (AY 2019-20) and held that with regard to late remittance of contribution under

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Us:

disallowing the claim made for Rs. 9,00,00,000/-, the AO has relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Roshan Di Hatti (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) which is distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, the appellant, in the case on hand has relied in support of his claim on the decisions rendered

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)

disallowed the contributions made towards PF and ESI at Rs.21,72,171/- as it relates to previous year and for the balance amount of Rs.11,78,666/- (Rs.33,50,827 – Rs.21,72,171/-) directed the AO to verify whether the payments were made within the due dates and allow the same from the perspective of section 36(1)(va), 2

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ANDHRA PAPER LIMITED, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Tax, Circle-1, (M/S. International Paper Rajamahendravaram. Appm Ltd), Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos: 22 & 23/Viz/2022 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (M/S. International Paper Appm Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltd), Rajamahendravaram. Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

x) Disallowance of forwarding & - Rs. 2,18,20,000/- Transport Charges 4. The Ld. AO while making the above disallowances observed that the assessee could not produce the details of bills and vouchers for examination and has produced only the copies of the ledger account. Therefore, the Ld. AO estimated the above disallowances of the total expenses incurred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ANDHRA PAPER LIMITED, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Tax, Circle-1, (M/S. International Paper Rajamahendravaram. Appm Ltd), Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos: 22 & 23/Viz/2022 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (M/S. International Paper Appm Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltd), Rajamahendravaram. Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

x) Disallowance of forwarding & - Rs. 2,18,20,000/- Transport Charges 4. The Ld. AO while making the above disallowances observed that the assessee could not produce the details of bills and vouchers for examination and has produced only the copies of the ledger account. Therefore, the Ld. AO estimated the above disallowances of the total expenses incurred

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 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act was addressed by way of rectification order passed by the Ld.AO u/s. 154 of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the only issue now contested by the assessee is with respect to addition in accordance with the Rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. He further pleaded

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed U/s. 54F of the Act for Rs. 2,90,30,172/- and assessed the same as income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee by mistake

BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance of the Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/VIZ/2025 Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy short term capital loss incurred of Rs. 2,15,58,733/- on sale of listed equity shares. 6. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in upholding that the appellant is not eligible to carry forward the unabsorbed

BTHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance of the Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/VIZ/2025 Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy short term capital loss incurred of Rs. 2,15,58,733/- on sale of listed equity shares. 6. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in upholding that the appellant is not eligible to carry forward the unabsorbed

BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowance of the Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/VIZ/2025 Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy short term capital loss incurred of Rs. 2,15,58,733/- on sale of listed equity shares. 6. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in upholding that the appellant is not eligible to carry forward the unabsorbed

MUDDADA LAKSHMI RAGHUPATHINAIDU EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.82/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muddada Lakshmi Raghupathinaidu Vs. Income Tax Officer Educational Society Exemption Ward Bandi Street Visakhapatnam Narsannapeta, Srikakulam [Pan : Aaaam8396E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

2. The learned Addl./JCIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act as the gross receipts of each institution run by the appellant did not exceed Rs.1 crore. 3. The learned Addl.JCIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.27,850/- made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of donations

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

Bench: Us:

Section 147 of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee company assailed the impugned addition made by the A.O. on the merits of the case. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations