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

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

condone the delay of 150 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 9. Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate, Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of appeal sought for admission of additional grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as below: “1. Assessment in the case of the appellant

SUNIL KUMAR PEJJAI,CHILAKALURIPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 5 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the reassessment

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

delay due to severe back pain. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, issuing a notice under section 148, which was later deemed a show-cause notice under section 148A(b). The assessee filed a return, but the AO added Rs. 1,12,13,500 as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

SREEPADA VENKATASUBBAMMA,ACHANTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

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.29/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sreepada Venkatasubbamma Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-166 Ward-1 Brahmana Veedhi Palakol Penumanchili, Achanta West Godavari Dist [Pan : Djzps9581M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 I.T.A. No.29/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, A chanta 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, and has not filed any return of income for the A.Y.2013-14. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,87,73,000/- in her savings bank account. After issuing statutory notices

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay in filing\nthe present appeal, and are of the view that as the same is not inordinate and is\nsupported by justifiable reason, therefore, the same merits condonation.\n24.\nComing to the merits of the case, we find that as stated by the Learned\nAuthorised Representatives, the issue involved in the present appeal remains the\nsame as was there

ANDHARA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024To 134/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Andhra Pradesh State Council Of Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Higher Education Income Tax Neeladri Towers Circle-1(1) Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aamfa3316R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing in the interest of justice. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being disposed of for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.237/Viz/2020, A.Y.2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case

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

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay in filing\nthe present appeal, and are of the view that as the same is not inordinate and is\nsupported by justifiable reason, therefore, the same merits condonation.\n24.\nComing to the merits of the case, we find that as stated by the Learned\nAuthorised Representatives, the issue involved in the present appeal remains the\nsame as was there

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

reassessment proceedings and an ex-parte order. For AY 2018-19, the assessee also failed to file returns, and subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings were initiated. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned

MEKA VIRAJ GOPAL APPARAO,NUZVID vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condone the delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) u/s 250 of the IT Act is bad in law as well as facts

MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 after noticing a cash deposit of Rs. 51,00,000/-. The assessee eventually filed a return declaring income of Rs. 5,93,450/-.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the 41-day delay

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 149 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 filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 27/03/2018 admitting a total income of Rs.6