RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 30/06/2022 for the Assessment Year 2 Venkata Ramana Murthy Bollapragada vs ITO (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SYNDICATE RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MUTUALLY AIDED COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 3 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a society involved in the business of banking / providing credit facility to its members and others. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for CASS

SYNDICATE RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MUTUALLY AIDED COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 3 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a society involved in the business of banking / providing credit facility to its members and others. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for CASS