OMCON REIGN FOREST PROJECTS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

section 263 and 271 of the Act establishes that the Ld.Pr.CIT is empowered to take action u/s 263 for non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in a suitable case. (a) CIT Vs. Ashok Constructions [280 ITR 368 (Allahabad High Court)] (b) CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [273 ITR 113 (Allahabad High Court)] (c) Star Diamond Tools

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI M. SOMABRAHMAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271 shall be Imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as for as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to In this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

MOTHUKURI SOMABRAHMAM,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271 shall be Imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as for as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to In this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

139(1) of the Act and thereafter, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Assessing Officer U/s. 271

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

4\n6.\nOn being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, assessee is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1.\nThat under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order\npassed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short 'Ld.\nPCIT') u/s

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO and that the same cannot be intervened by the Ld. PCIT invoking the powers u/s 263 of the IT Act, as held by Judiciary in several cases. 5. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO and that the same cannot be intervened by the Ld. PCIT invoking the powers u/s 263 of the IT Act, as held by Judiciary in several cases. 5. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 153A, the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A is to be considered as return filed u/s 139, as the AO has made assessment on the said return and, therefore, the return has to be considered for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty is to be levied

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

4 of ANN/GPB/RES/28. Accordingly, on being satisfied,\nnotice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 13.01.2022 and served\nelectronically. In response, assessee filed return of income on 30.03.2022\nadmitting a total income of Rs.19,64,780/- and agricultural income of\nRs.4,60,000/-. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of\nthe Act were issued

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. The sole issue contested by the assessee is with respect to levy of penalty of Rs.17,66,614/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the quantum appeal filed

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) cannot be faulted. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO and the penalty order is hereby confirmed and the above grounds of appeal are dismissed.” Further, we observed that the assessee has not filed her return of income U/s. 139(1) of the Act but has filed in response

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,,SRIKAKULAM vs. JCIT TDS RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

139 2009-10 4,17,26,245 2010-11 2,26,48,247 6.2 The assessee had deducted TDS at 2% u/s 194C on the said payments and it was contended that it was merely a contractual payment. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the terms of the Brewing Agreement where the consideration for the said payment

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

139 2009-10 4,17,26,245 2010-11 2,26,48,247 6.2 The assessee had deducted TDS at 2% u/s 194C on the said payments and it was contended that it was merely a contractual payment. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the terms of the Brewing Agreement where the consideration for the said payment

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,SRIKAKULAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

139 2009-10 4,17,26,245 2010-11 2,26,48,247 6.2 The assessee had deducted TDS at 2% u/s 194C on the said payments and it was contended that it was merely a contractual payment. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the terms of the Brewing Agreement where the consideration for the said payment

SAMRAJYAM KONDRU,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

4 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Samrajyam Kondru, Krishna Dist. Rs.28,57,000/- who failed to appreciate the fact that penalty is not imposable in the instant case. a) As there is a “a reasonable cause” for non-compliance of the provisions of sec.269SS and b) As the appellant paid taxes voluntarily by filing a return u/s 139(1) and does

STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AP,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 147/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) State Board Of Technical Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Education & Training Ap, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aawas9250P Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee 4 at Rs. 1,59,00,000/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

BAPATLA MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT SOCIET LIMITED,BAPATLA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, BAPATLA

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’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) was issued along with the detailed questionnaires. However, there was no compliance with reference to said e-notice. Therefore, the Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings U/s. 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA vs. SRI JIYYANA VENKATARAYUDU (HUF), KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 173/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu Tax, Circle-1, (Huf), Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aahhj3600A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

271 r.w.s 274 of the Act was also served on the assessee. Subsequently, a show cause notice was also issued to the assessee to show cause as to why a penalty U/s. 271F of the Act should not be levied for non-filing of the return of income before the due date as required U/s. 139