ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SIVA JYOTHI PALAM, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary and income from house property

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay of 23\ndays in the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on\nmerits in the following paragraphs.\n21.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of\nM/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his return of income for the\nA.Y.2020-21 on 22.03.2021 admitting a total income of Rs.31

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

condone the delay of 23\ndays in the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on\nmerits in the following paragraphs.\n21.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of\nM/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his return of income for the\nA.Y.2020-21 on 22.03.2021 admitting a total income of Rs.31

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

condone the delay and observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as not Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 331 and 332 of 2024 Ponnam Bhavani Vijayawada maintainable. He has now referred to an affidavit of the assessee dated 4/2/2025 filed before the Tribunal explaining the cause of delay. Thus, the learned

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

condone the delay and observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as not Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos 331 and 332 of 2024 Ponnam Bhavani Vijayawada maintainable. He has now referred to an affidavit of the assessee dated 4/2/2025 filed before the Tribunal explaining the cause of delay. Thus, the learned

UMA MAHESWARA REDDY MAJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.163/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15) Uma Maheswarareddy Majji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52-11-11/1, Resapuvanipalem, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh – 530018. Pan: Alxpm 1484 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ss Sarat Chandra, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 31/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

house for 10 days, hence he was not available to sign the appeal papers that was prepared for filing of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. 2. Immediately after recovery the appeal papers were signed and filed before the Hon’ble ITAT on 23/05/2023 causing a delay of 9 days. 3 …….” 3. From the above contents of the affidavit filed

MATAM LATHAMMA,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

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

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.225/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Matam Lathamma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adypl2367A Anakapalle. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal.” 4. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee dated 21/11/2024 and submitted that while filing the revised return of income, the assessee admitted the rental income

MANPREET SINGH LAMBA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 292/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Manpreet Singh Lamba V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-3(3) 54-20-212, Jawahar Auto Nagar Central Revenue Buildings Iind Cross Road Bandar Road Vijayawada – 520007 Vijayawada – 520002 Ntr District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aampl1721D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

NANNAPANENI SAILAJA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay and read out the contents of the\npetition which is as under: -\n\"1. In the case of the appellant, the order of the learned Commissioner\nof Income Tax (Appeals) was passed on 22.10.2024. As such, the appeal\nagainst this order ought to have been filed on or before 31.12.2024.\nHowever, the appeal could be filed only

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, in the business of manufacturing edible oil in the name & style of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery filed return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 3 I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Sinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist. 30.10.2017, admitting total income

MUTHAVARAPU SRINIVASA BABU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condone the delay of 503 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, House property

RATNA KUMARI KOPPISETTY,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 411/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratna Kumari Koppisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 3-11-A/3, Recharlapeta Income Tax Office, 11-11-1 3Rd Floor, Sanjivi Hospital Complex Military Colony Ramaraopeta – 533004 Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Asdpk7729B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. Assessee filed her return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 22-03-2018, admitting a total income of Rs.4,15,270/- besides agricultural income

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/- 5. In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession

BANDARU PADMAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

condone the delay of 208 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, derives income from house property

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income