BATHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. ix. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar - (2024) 163taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. x. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Serajuddin& Co. - (2023) 150taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) - High Court of Orissa Judgment. xi. M/s. Confident Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Central Circle

BTHINA KUMARA SWAMY REDDY,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. ix. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar - (2024) 163taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) - High Court of Delhi Judgment. x. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Serajuddin& Co. - (2023) 150taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) - High Court of Orissa Judgment. xi. M/s. Confident Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Central Circle

NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

reassessment proceedings\nare void-ab-initio.\n4.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nheld that the assessing officer is not justified in considering the amount paid\nfor purchase of fish as unexplained and making addition of Rs.2,29,06,560\nu/s 69A of the Act.\n5.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have

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

section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that

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

Bench: Us:

166 days by the Tribunal, had observed that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company

NIMMANA NARASIMHARAO,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2018 (which has been held by us hereinabove to be a valid return of income), had by treating the said “return of income” as invalid, dispensed with the statutory requirement of issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed

SRI KSHEERA RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PALAKOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.199/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Swamy Temple, (Exemptions), Palakol. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aakas5615E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/12/2019 For A.Y. 2017-18. 2 I Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Vs. Ito (Exemptions)

Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 01.12.2017 (which has been held by us hereinabove to be a valid return of income), had withdrawn the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 22.09.2019 that was initially issued by him by treating the said “return of income” as invalid. Accordingly, the A.O had thereafter dispensed with the statutory requirement

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

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

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act considered the property as 3 transferred during the assessment year 2016-17. The Ld. AO noticing that the assessee has not filed return of income for the AY 2016-17 believed that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served