SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was\nenhanced from 30% to 60%, was applicable only to the transactions from 01.4.2017 and\ncould not be applied retrospectively. The Ld.AR submitted that the Tribunal in its\naforesaid orders had specifically observed that the higher rate of tax @60% under\nsection 115BBE of the Act was applicable

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 7,21,890/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny of assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 8. During the course of assessment

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TUNI vs. MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.436/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S M.K.Aqua Hatchery Ward-1 D.No.3-36, Chintakayalapeta Tuni Thondangi (M) E.G.Dist. [Pan :Aazfm0955H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Itano.10128/2017-18/Ito,W-1,Tuni/Vsp/2018-19 Dated 21.03.2019 For The Assessment Year(A.Y.)2015-16 With The Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessing Officer Filed The Condonation Petition Giving Administrative Reasons For Delay. The Ld.Ar Expressed No Objection For Condoning The Delay. Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 2 I.T.A. No.436/Viz/2019, A.Y.2015-16 M/s M.K.Aqua Hatchery, Thondangi 2. All the grounds in this appeal are related to the addition of Rs.2,12,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) which was deleted by the CIT(A. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee-firm is carrying on business of bullion trading in gold and silver and trading in gold ornaments and silver articles and filed its return of income

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay and proceed to decide the\npresent appeal on merits.\n4.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\norders passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 02-12-2019 of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 02-12-\n2019, that was confirmed

SRIDHAR YARLAGADDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sridhar Yarlagadda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Abdpy4072 G Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the reasons stated therein, ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed off on merits. 2. Your Appellant submits that the entire cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization period is out of the cash withdrawal in the earlier period. Hence, cannot be said to be unexplained under section 68

ANIL KUMAR VELLAGA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,470/-. The AO completed the assessment, making significant additions based on these transactions and other sources.", "held": "The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in-limine due to a delay in filing. The assessee appealed this decision, arguing that the delay was due to a lack of awareness of appeal procedures and time taken for professional consultations

FOCUS TRANS TECH SHIPPING PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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. 179/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2019-20) Focus Transtech Shipping Private Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Limited Circle-3(1) Flat No.402, Level 4, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcf3074H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kamasastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 16.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

68,73,970/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 234 days. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, saying that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. 3 ITA No. 179/Viz/2021, A.Y.2019-20 Focus Trans Tech Shipping (P) Ltd., Visakhapatnam 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred

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

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 I.T.A. No.299/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, doing wholesale Kirana business under the name and style of Sri Sai Deekshitha Enterprises filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 29.12.2017, admitting an income of Rs.10

TIRUMALA RAO BATTU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

68 of the IT Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained cash credits, without considering submissions made by the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,39,350/-u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained investment, ignoring the explanations furnished by the assessee. 5. The authorities below have failed to discharge

COASTAL ENGINEERING & EQUIPEMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 138/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Coastal Engineering & Equipments V. Income Tax Officer – Circle 1(1) (India) Private Limited Income Tax Office 30-1-1/7, Flat No. 201 Pratyakshakar Bhawan Neeladri Complex Mvp Double Road, South Jail Road, Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaecc3619C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is a company filed its return of income on 27.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.20,87,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny with the reason "Change in method of Accounting". During the course

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,90,84,000/- made towards additional price/withheld price of milk produced. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

KAVULURU LAKSHMI NARAYANA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-7-10A, Donka Road Ward-2(2) Mogalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aajhk5298R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-2, Guntur In Ita No.372/Gnt/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Dated19.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2014-15 With The Delay Of 36 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Sickness Of 2

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal : In respect of addition of Rs.5,00,000/- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred both in facts and law in sustaining the addition without considering the fact that the family member's agricultural incomes were deposited

PADMA MINNAKURI,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

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. 106/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Padma Minnakuri V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-1(1) Guntur - 522001 D.No.26-20-317 Andhra Pradesh 10Th Line, Sivaram Nagar Guntur 522004, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bdlpm7530E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 days in filing the appeal. F. Therefore, due to such above reasons and also due to inadequate knowledge about the I.T. Provisions, the entire process has caused delay in filing the appeal in time. 5. As there was no malafide intention and delay was only due to non observation of receipt of the appellate order of the Learned Commissioner

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VARUN OGILI, NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 admitting a total income of Rs. 24,66,800/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, , GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132