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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed deduction u/s 54F to the extent of eligible investment, however, when the balance claim of deduction u/s 54F to the extent of Rs.16,83,476/- is not permissible and the explanation of assessee is not found to be Bonafide, thus, the penalty

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed deduction u/s 54F to the extent of eligible investment, however, when the balance claim of deduction u/s 54F to the extent of Rs.16,83,476/- is not permissible and the explanation of assessee is not found to be Bonafide, thus, the penalty

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

penalty in terms of lien of Government over the plant, machinery and equipments and forfeiture of security deposits etc. 5.15 I have already dealt with relevant clauses of the tender documents stipulating various conditions viz. financial involvements, risks, obligations and responsibilities of the assessee in developing, operating and maintaining of infrastructure facilities, which clearly make the case of the assessee

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

Penalty initiated separately proceedings Act, Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1961. u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated The are initiated separately appeal is separately. allowed 2 Vishnu ACWPN3597R ACIT, Assessment Assessee filed No scrutiny No appeal Swaroop Reddy Circle-6, completed u/s 143(3) appeal assessment Narapareddy Hyd on 03.03.2016 against order making addition u/s 143(3). towards LONG

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalty in terms of lien of Government over the plant,\nmachinery and equipments and forfeiture of security deposits etc.\n5.15 I have already dealt with relevant clauses of the tender\ndocuments stipulating various conditions viz. financial\ninvolvements, risks, obligations and responsibilities of the\nassessee in developing, operating and maintaining of\ninfrastructure facilities, which clearly make the case of the\nassessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PARASURAMAN KARTHIK IYER , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. In the quantum appeals, the Department has raised Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos 1796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer identical grounds, except the quantum of additions. The grounds raised by the Department in the quantum appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PARASURAMAN KARTHIK IYER , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. In the quantum appeals, the Department has raised Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos 1796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer identical grounds, except the quantum of additions. The grounds raised by the Department in the quantum appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PARASURAMAN KATHIK IYER , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. In the quantum appeals, the Department has raised Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos 1796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer identical grounds, except the quantum of additions. The grounds raised by the Department in the quantum appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PARASURAMAN KARTHIK IYER, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. In the quantum appeals, the Department has raised Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos 1796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer identical grounds, except the quantum of additions. The grounds raised by the Department in the quantum appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PARASURAMAN KARTHIK IYER, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. In the quantum appeals, the Department has raised Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos 1796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer identical grounds, except the quantum of additions. The grounds raised by the Department in the quantum appeals