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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings and charged at higher rate.” 3.1 Similar grounds are raised by the two assessees in other appeals also except