GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

disallowance was primarily based on the ground that the return of income was filed belatedly in response to a notice under Section 148, and not within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1).", "held": "The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Section 69A. This selectiverejection, in the absence of any change in\nfacts or law, is discriminatory and devoidof merit.\n4. Judicial precedents supporting the Appellant:\nA. PCIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-op Bank Ltd. (2021) 123\ntaxmann.com 161B.(SC): The Supreme Court held that a co-\noperative society engaged in providingcredit facilities to its\nmembers is eligible for deduction under

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order\nheld that where Assessing Officer disallowed

PADMAVATHI GURUVU,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.227/Viz/2024 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Padmavathi Guruvu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-2, Pan: Abopg1523D Srikakulam. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 129 of the Act. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished the required information and the Ld. AO after verification of the submissions, completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 25,10,000/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also made an addition

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order\nheld that where Assessing Officer disallowed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. TATIPARTI SATYANARAYANA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.76/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana Ward-1(1) D.No.25-8-9 & 10 Visakhapatnam Sri Satyanarayana Gold Complex, Main Road Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aggpt5353F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.42/Viz/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.25-8-9 & 10 Ward-1(1) Sri Satyanarayana Gold Complex, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aggpt5353F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Sthis Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam In Ita

section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. The CIT (A) erred in allowing additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of documents / paper book, when the same were not produced before the Assessing Officer, without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine and, if necessary, rebut the additional evidence to submit

THE MACHILIPATNAM POSTAL DEPTL & GDS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NO H164,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 Aayakar Bhavan, Parasupeta Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aafat5514L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

69A of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. 3. Further, Ld. AO also did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee with respect to deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,92,203/-. Ld. AO thus invoked the provisions of section 80AC

SREE SHANTINATH MUNISUVARAT SWAMY RAJENDRA SURI JAIN TRUST,TANUKU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, TANUKU

disallowed a deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and added cash deposits of Rs. 11,50,962.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file a valid return of income, thus rendering the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) unsustainable as per section 80A(5). Regarding the cash deposits, the matter was remitted

VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 69A of the Act as unexplained money and has also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,85,500/- being claim

ALLADI KRISHNA PRASAD,MANDALAPARRU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TADEPALLIGUDEM

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.172/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Alladi Krishna Prasad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Aayakar Bhawan D.No. 3-73, Mandalaparru D.No. 2-1-56/1 Nidamarru Mandal Opp. Punjab National Bank West Godavari – 534198 K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcjpa7058L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A on account of credits. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and filed his submissions and evidences. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal

NARASIMHA RAO PALEM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.211/Viz/2023 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Narasimha Rao Palem Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Credit Ward-3(3), Society Limited, Vijayawada. Krishna District – 521214. Pan: Aacat7998M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

69A of the Act. 9. For these and such other submissions that are to be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the claim made by the assessee U/s. 80P of the Act be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued that the assessee

NAKKA KASIVISWESWARA RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office #7-155 Aayakar Bhavan Kadiyapulanka Village Veerabhadrapuram Kadiyam Mandal Kambala Cheruvu East Godavari District-533126 Rajahmundry-533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aenpn2596K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the balance amount of Rs.10,26,289/- and added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A

KANASAPALLI PACS LTD,KANASAPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.125/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kanasanapalli Pacs Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanasanapalli Post, Ward-3(4), Agiripalli Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521212. Pan: Aabak 4998 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

69A of the Act. Further, for verification purposes, the Ld. AO issued notice U/s. 133(6) of the Act to the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Agiripalli Branch, Krishna District and received the information as called for with regard to the assessee’s account. On perusal of the assessee’s bank statements, the Ld. AO noted that though

KUNADHARAJU NAGA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU,GANAPAVARAM MANDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.442/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2018-19) Kanadharaju Naga Venkata Ramakrishnam Raju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-1 D.No. 3-96, Jallikakinada Income Tax Office, Sajjapuram Ganapavaram Mandal Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh West Godavari District – 534186 Andhra Pradesh

section 69A of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on his contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by him. The Ld.CIT(A) thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee

SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA STONE CRUSHERS,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that these are mere receipts from business activities of the Appellant which is totally arbitrary. 3. The Learned AO and the CIT(A) have made an erroneous disallowance

KOPPU VENKATESH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.397/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koppu Venkatesh V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Income Tax Office D.No. 50-56-2 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Rajendra Nagar Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcppk6187G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on his contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal based

PEDDINI ASHOK KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Peddini Ashok Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(1) D.No. 49-36-13/1 Income Tax Office Nggo’S Colony, Akkayyapalem Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aqlpp3626L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits and also estimated profit of Rs. 98,51,580/- being @8% on the turnover of Rs.12,31,44,757/- and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,12,57,580/-. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt

SUBBA RAO JALADI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

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

section 69A of the IT Act. 5. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted. 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Assessing