Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT v. Lotus Constructions

370 ITR 475High Court2015#8621 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT v. Lotus Constructions

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory iii) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) Mohd. Farhan A. sheikh v. DCIT iv) ITA No. 1154/2014 (Bom) dated 5.1.2017 CIT v. Shri Samson Perincherry v) 264 CTR 502 (Karn) CIT v. MWP Ltd. SLP dismissed by Apex Court in CC No. 7485/2014 vi) 370 ITR 475 (AP) CIT v. Lotus Constructions vii) 237 Taxman 702 (Kar) Safina Hotels (P) Ltd. v. CIT 9. THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE QUANTUM INDEPENDENT AND THAT FINDINGS IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH RELEVANT, ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE OR DETERMINATIVE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS: It is further submitted that while initiating penalty proceedings…

BHASKARA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1512/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…desh). He further submitted a Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, in the case of Moola Padmaja Vs ACIT in ITA No.234/Hyd/2022 for the assessment year 2012-13 considered the decisions in the cases of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra), CIT vs. Lotus Constructions, 370 ITR 475 and Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 and took a view that merely for non-specifying in the notice as to under which limb the penalty is levied i.e., for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular Page 4 of 11 of income thereof, the penalty cannot be cancelled especially when the assessee, who is a non-filer, was…

ARUNACHAL POLICE HOUSING & WELFARE CORPORATION LIMITED,PAPUMPARE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, D/R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1)(c)” in the order of assessment also does not meet the compliance requirement in the present case. 5. To buttress his contentions, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Lotus Constructions (2015) 370 ITR 475 (AP), which has held that Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty on the ground that there was no endorsement in the order of assessment to the effect that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be initiated. Relevant paragraph from the said order is reproduced as under:- AY 2016-17 Arunachal Police Housing & Welfare Corp. Ltd. 5 “11. O…

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…enue must specify as to which one of two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting one or between two. 12. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs Lotus Constructions reported in 370 ITR 475, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where intention or satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act was not evident from order of the assessment, initiation of said proceedings was untenable. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs…

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…enue must specify as to which one of two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting one or between two. 12. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs Lotus Constructions reported in 370 ITR 475, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where intention or satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act was not evident from order of the assessment, initiation of said proceedings was untenable. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs…

SADHANA NITRO CHEM LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7 (2) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Ito 7(2)(2), Hira Baug, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kasturba Chowk, (C.P. Tank), Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aabcs1231R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.Mohan (ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…C) held that mere 4 ITA No. 2192/M/2016- M/s Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Lotus Construction reported vide [2015] 370 ITR 475(A P), V.V. Projects and Investment Private Limited Vs DCIT [2008] 300 ITR 40(AP), Chennakeshwar Pharmacautical Vs CIT [2012] 349 ITR 196 (A P), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568(Delhi), held that recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order about the initiation of penalty is must.…

SHREECHAND BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 2631/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ording any satisfaction, learned AR contended that the impugned penalty proceeding is not sustainable in law in both the cases. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Lotus Construction (370 ITR 475). 6. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the provisions of section 271(1B) of the Act and accordingly opposed the legal ground raised by the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We also noticed that the Assessing Officer, in both the cases did not indicate that he is initia…

SHREECHAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 2630/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ording any satisfaction, learned AR contended that the impugned penalty proceeding is not sustainable in law in both the cases. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Lotus Construction (370 ITR 475). 6. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the provisions of section 271(1B) of the Act and accordingly opposed the legal ground raised by the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We also noticed that the Assessing Officer, in both the cases did not indicate that he is initia…

SHAH JAIN ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(32)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…isfaction in the assessment order. In absence of such initiation and satisfaction, penalty levied itself is unsustainable in law. In support, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:- “(i) C.I.T. v. Lotus Constructions [2015] 370 ITR 475- The Section 271(1)(c) itself indicates that the satisfaction or decision to initiate proceedings must arise in the course of the proceedings. Added to that, sub- section (1) (b) of Section 271 mandates that the intention or satisfaction to initiate proceedings must be evident from the order of assessment itself, meaning thereby that such satisfa…

DINESH H. KOTADIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 35, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 2821/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. BeharilalFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s below. Relying on the decision rendered by Pune Bench of the ITAT in Ajit Tamchadra Jadhav vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2104/PN/2013 A.Y. 2003-04) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT vs. Lotus Constructions [2015] 370 ITR 475 (T&AP) submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand the Ld. DR relying on the concurrent findings of the authorities below submitted that since the order under challenge has been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, there is no merit in the case of the appellant/assessee. 7. We have heard the riv…

DINESH H. KOTADIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 35, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 2820/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. BeharilalFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s below. Relying on the decision rendered by Pune Bench of the ITAT in Ajit Tamchadra Jadhav vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2104/PN/2013 A.Y. 2003-04) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT vs. Lotus Constructions [2015] 370 ITR 475 (T&AP) submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand the Ld. DR relying on the concurrent findings of the authorities below submitted that since the order under challenge has been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, there is no merit in the case of the appellant/assessee. 7. We have heard the riv…

DINESH H. KOTADIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 35, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 2819/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. BeharilalFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s below. Relying on the decision rendered by Pune Bench of the ITAT in Ajit Tamchadra Jadhav vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2104/PN/2013 A.Y. 2003-04) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT vs. Lotus Constructions [2015] 370 ITR 475 (T&AP) submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand the Ld. DR relying on the concurrent findings of the authorities below submitted that since the order under challenge has been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, there is no merit in the case of the appellant/assessee. 7. We have heard the riv…

M/S. SVP BUILDERS (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4673/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Ita No. 4673/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Svp Builders (India) Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 17, Kiran Enclave, G.T. Road, Tax, Circle-7(1), Ghaziabad New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs8870M Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Amrapalli Das, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrapalli Das, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…the ld. CIT(A) on the addition of Rs.39,40,500/- was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 5 SVP Builders (India) Ltd. " CIT Vs Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 660 (All) " CIT Vs Lotus Constructions (2015) 370 ITR 475 (T & AP) And the order dated 29.04.2014 of the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi in ITA Nos. 4238 to 4249/Del/2012 for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 in assessee’s own case. 7. In her rival submissions the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the addition of Rs.39,40,500/- made by th…