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

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The fact that even voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s

DIVJYOT CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V. RANGAREDDY vs. ITO., WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation. Hence, passing orders levying a penalty when the quantum orders are not yet finalized is bad in law and hence, the penalty levied needs to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the learned A.O. u/s. 271

NITEN KUMAR GOEL,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

depreciation and had thereby furnished inaccurate particulars. AO found it to be a fit case for imposition of penalty and levied a minimum penalty of Rs. 2,97,476/- u/s. 271

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under: 9.3 After going through all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments put forth by the AR of the appellant the conclusions that can be arrived at are: i. The assessee filed all details regarding land transaction along with the return of income declaring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

depreciation @25% amounting to Rs. 3,69,141/- on brought forward written down value of Rs. 14,76,563/- in respect of non-compete fee of Rs. 40 lakhs paid in Asst. Year 2007-08 to Sudhir Vaid in relation to Concord Biotech Limited. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

depreciation @25% amounting to Rs. 3,69,141/- on brought forward written down value of Rs. 14,76,563/- in respect of non-compete fee of Rs. 40 lakhs paid in Asst. Year 2007-08 to Sudhir Vaid in relation to Concord Biotech Limited. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated

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

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

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

SUDHEER PARIMALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sudheer Parimala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 016. Vs. Ward-10(1), Hyderabad. Pan Ahppp7572E Pin - 500 004. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

penalty proceedings initiated under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F;  And grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The assessee also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad ('Ld. AO") erred

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHAKTI MET DOR LTD), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2006-07

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO. At the outset, we find this ground raised by the assessee to be premature and therefore, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. 3. At the outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 368 days in filing the appeal before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 20. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find the AO in this case made the additions on the ground that assessee has not incurred any such expenditure till date and could not submit any bills and vouchers