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

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 1,96,40,000/- after examining the details of long term capital gains. 2.1 When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) as well as ITAT, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 1,96,40,000/- after examining the details of long term capital gains. 2.1 When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) as well as ITAT, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act against the gross total income. 3· On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act on the alleged ground that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D was made in the order passed u/s

DCIT,CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. DR. REDDY'S LABOURATORIES LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that additions are made on facts and pertain to deductions

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

RAVINDRA REDDY PALLAVALLI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devishri Ravinder Reddy Vs Income Tax Officer Pallavali Ward 8(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Amhpp 1849 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction u/s 80C of the Act. 3. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee filed a letter dated 21.09.2011 stating that he is a small contractor and is executing small work and the amounts deposited in the Bank A/c are nothing but the money received from his family members who are agriculturists and also that he has given

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 274 rws 271(1)(c) is not filed on record. 7.1 As regards the ground raised on merits, on going through the orders of authorities below, we observe that penalty has been imposed by the AO on the ground of non-disclosure of the contract works and addition made on estimated basis, on which penalty has been imposed

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