VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

160/-. While passing the assessment order dated 11/03/2016, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the 4 Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the decision of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

section 143(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 27.01.2020 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of Ld. AO (CPC) as well as Ld CIT(A) are contrary to the facts and also the provisions / law applicable

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

160 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation and declined to condone the delay. Therefore, both the appeals were

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

160 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation and declined to condone the delay. Therefore, both the appeals were

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

160/- on 24/03/2017. The Ld. AO during the course of verification noticed that the assessee claimed deduction U/s. 10 for Rs. 19,31,147/- whereas it was as per Form-16 furnished by the assessee Rs. 6,31,001/- and Rs. 53,933/-. The Ld. AO therefore concluded that the assessee has made an excess claim