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

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash

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

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash

SRI SATYANARAYANA FERTILIZERS,VIZAINAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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. 536/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Satyanarayana Fertilizers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram. Ward-1, Pan:Aaifs2692G Vizianagaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,62,85,800/- and passed the assessment order dated 23/03/2022. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 165 days

KODALI SURESH BABU,LABBIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

condonation of delay was also rejected by the Ld. CIT (IT & TP), Hyderabad vide order dated 28/09/2021. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny by issuing notice U/s. 142(1) on various dates. In response, the assessee filed a detailed reply through email explaining the sources for payment of Rs. 6,16,67,850/-, which was accepted

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

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

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Rajamahendravaram in Appeal No.10021&22/2018-19/CIT(A)/RJY dated 06.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM ,PERAVALI MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, , TANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Rajamahendravaram in Appeal No.10021&22/2018-19/CIT(A)/RJY dated 06.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals

PROGRESSIVE POULTRY FARM,KHANDAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, THANUKU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2020, 131 & 157/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Progressive Poultry Farm Vs. Income Tax Officer Nh-5 Road, Khandavalli Ward-1 Peravali Mandal Tanuku [Pan : Aacfp7205N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Rajamahendravaram in Appeal No.10021&22/2018-19/CIT(A)/RJY dated 06.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 on 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 on the reason that the assessee trust does not have registration u/s 12A during the impugned assessment years. There is merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the action of the Ld.AO is barred by the third proviso

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 on 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 on the reason that the assessee trust does not have registration u/s 12A during the impugned assessment years. There is merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the action of the Ld.AO is barred by the third proviso

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 on 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 on the reason that the assessee trust does not have registration u/s 12A during the impugned assessment years. There is merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the action of the Ld.AO is barred by the third proviso

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 on 26.03.2021 for the A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 on the reason that the assessee trust does not have registration u/s 12A during the impugned assessment years. There is merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the action of the Ld.AO is barred by the third proviso

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

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

condone\nthe delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to\nadjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual did not file\nher return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. As per the Information with the\nRisk Management Strategy Formulated

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

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