DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

business of construction and development of electricity power plants, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 admitting total income of Rs.61,86,203/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued 3 and served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed the information as called

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

business stock in trade. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- is treated as distinct from sale income declared u/S 44AD and held as Long term capital gain, there being no Cost of acquisition and brought to -tax accordingly. The assessee also could hot substantiate that the Long Term Capital Gain declared in the Return of Income

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

business stock in trade. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- is treated as distinct from sale income declared u/S 44AD and held as Long term capital gain, there being no Cost of acquisition and brought to -tax accordingly. The assessee also could hot substantiate that the Long Term Capital Gain declared in the Return of Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

business income only and assessment is completed accordingly and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)C are being initiated.” 7.1. Before

VENKATESHWAR REDDY ATTIGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the expenses disallowed claimed at Rs.19

VENKATESHWAR REDDY ATIGADDA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the expenses disallowed claimed at Rs.19

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

business in the construction activity and as per that the profit percentage at the rate of 3.98% will be considered. as correct and reasonable estimated income of the assessee and in view of the that we hereby request you to kindly consider the request of the assessee and Income of the assessee company should be considered at the rate

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

business in the construction activity and as per that the profit percentage at the rate of 3.98% will be considered. as correct and reasonable estimated income of the assessee and in view of the that we hereby request you to kindly consider the request of the assessee and Income of the assessee company should be considered at the rate

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

business in the construction activity and as per that the profit percentage at the rate of 3.98% will be considered. as correct and reasonable estimated income of the assessee and in view of the that we hereby request you to kindly consider the request of the assessee and Income of the assessee company should be considered at the rate

PACT SECURITIES AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the results, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanpact Securities & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Financial Services Ltd Tax, Circle 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabcp4438R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.6,23,643 u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of hire purchase and equipment leasing financial services, filed its return of income

KAMALA SHIVA KUMAR,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

u/s 271(1)(c) vide letter dated 08/03/2016 on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars by not accounting the income earned from the execution of contract works and earned undisclosed income which is not disclosed to the department. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee stated that the contract receipts pertain to the business

P.JANGA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

271(1)(c) . In response to the notice, the AR of the assessee, Sri D. Ramakrishna Reddy appeared on 24/08/2016 and submitted that since the Income is estimated, penalty may be dropped. Though the bank deposits were treated as "business receipts" and income was estimated, the income was not shown in the return of income. Only during the appellate proceedings

SRI RAJA REDDY NALLA,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Raja Reddy Nalla Vs. Add. C. I. T. Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aaxpn3602Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Venkateshwar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Reddy :Pacchica, Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Ablpp0688B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy Cot(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In These Two Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

business or profession and income from other sources. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted along with the group cases of M/s. Moksha Infracon Pvt Ltd and M/s. Kaveri Infra Projects (P) Ltd on 9.8.2018. The assessee filed his return of income on for the A.Y under consideration on 14.02.2020 admitting total income

SRI VENKATESHWAR REDDY PACCHICA,WARANGAL vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE1, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Raja Reddy Nalla Vs. Add. C. I. T. Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aaxpn3602Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Venkateshwar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Reddy :Pacchica, Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Ablpp0688B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy Cot(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In These Two Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

business or profession and income from other sources. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted along with the group cases of M/s. Moksha Infracon Pvt Ltd and M/s. Kaveri Infra Projects (P) Ltd on 9.8.2018. The assessee filed his return of income on for the A.Y under consideration on 14.02.2020 admitting total income

P.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 1395 & 1396/Hyd/2019 P. Venkata Ramana Reddy, Hyd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his e-return of income for the Ay 2015-16 on 05/01/2017 admitting total income at Rs. 56,30,000/-. The said return

P.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 1395 & 1396/Hyd/2019 P. Venkata Ramana Reddy, Hyd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his e-return of income for the Ay 2015-16 on 05/01/2017 admitting total income at Rs. 56,30,000/-. The said return

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and in response to notice issued as to why penalty should not be levied, the assessee furnished its reply stating that an affidavit was filed in the course of survey offering an additional income and agreeing not to levy penalty in respect of additional income without protracting the litigation and conduct the business

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and in response to notice issued as to why penalty should not be levied, the assessee furnished its reply stating that an affidavit was filed in the course of survey offering an additional income and agreeing not to levy penalty in respect of additional income without protracting the litigation and conduct the business

SABITHA REPALLE ,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1, VIKRARABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and in response to notice issued as to why penalty should not be levied, the assessee furnished its reply stating that an affidavit was filed in the course of survey offering an additional income and agreeing not to levy penalty in respect of additional income without protracting the litigation and conduct the business