HOMOEOPATH TOUFEEQ AHMED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house bearing Municipal No. 16-9-433/1, admeasuring 407.7 Sq. Yards or equivalent to 340.91 Sq. Meters, situated at old Malakpet, near Race Course, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs. 41,53,000/- and accepted Rs. 41,53,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), learned Assessing

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

In the result, three appeals i

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJA BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.Nos.596 & 597/Hyd

property whether or not the transfer takes\nplace.\nIt is further proposed to make consequential amendments in section 271D and section 271E to provide\npenalty for failure to comply with the amended provisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively.\nThese amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015.\n[Clauses 66, 67, 69 & 70]\n15. In the present

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

property. This was explained by Hon'ble\nFinance Minister while placing the Finance Bill, 2015 in her budget\nspeech highlighting the intention of the amendment that the\namendment in Explanation to Section 269SS i.e., 'sum specified'\nmeans only applicable for advance receivable, whether as advance\nor otherwise means advance can be in any manner. Hence, this\nprovision will not apply

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

property and the purchaser are agriculturists residing in rural areas, therefore, the provision of section 269SS are not attracted to the assessee, therefore, the learned Commissioner erred in 3 ITA.No.1505/Hyd./2025 confirming the order of the JCIT, levying penalty of Rs.43,50,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act. 6. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that

DAMODAR RAO BIBINAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Damodar Rao Bibinagar, Vs. The Additional 1-8-74/6, Commissioner Of Income Chikkadapally, Tax, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500020. Pan : Afjpb5620F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/12/2023

Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS impose penalties for receiving “specified sum” (the amount for sale of immovable property) in cash. The assessee’s explanation that the cash was intended for the daughter’s house

HOMOEOPATH TOUFEEQ AHMED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house for a consideration of Rs. 41,53,000/- and accepted Rs. 41,53,000/- in cash on 07/11/2016, on the next day demonetization was announced, and therefore, he was compelled to deposit the said in bank, but due to the fear of theft, he deposited the same in instalments in various banks. Authorities, however, did not agree with this

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. G CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.206/Hyd/2023 reads as under : “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the seized cash

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. G CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.206/Hyd/2023 reads as under : “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the seized cash