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

penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 30/12/2009, which is placed on record, it is seen that the Assessing

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

penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 30/12/2009, which is placed on record, it is seen that the Assessing

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)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F to the tune of Rs.1,05,51,982/- which was restricted by the CIT(A) to Rs.16,83,476/- and consequently the AO initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO thus levied penalty

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)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F to the tune of Rs.1,05,51,982/- which was restricted by the CIT(A) to Rs.16,83,476/- and consequently the AO initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO thus levied penalty

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition / disallowance made on account of profit

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S DEEPIKA INFRATECH PVT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the quantum assessment u/s 143(3), the AO made the following additions: a. Disallowance

M/S DEEPIKA INFRATECH PVT LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the quantum assessment u/s 143(3), the AO made the following additions: a. Disallowance

DEEPIKA INFRATECH PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the quantum assessment u/s 143(3), the AO made the following additions: a. Disallowance

VISHNU PRIYA FOODS ,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the order of Pr

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Vishnu Priya Foods Ito, Ward-2 C/O P Murali & Co., C.As Vs. Nizamabad 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad 500 082 Pan: Aakfv6377M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. P. Muralimohan Rao Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-15 Against The Order Of The Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad Dated 19.03.2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Firm, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 17.10.2015 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.1,81,287/-. During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao On Verification Of Audit Report Found That The Asesssee Has Claimed Vat Payment Of

disallowed the same and brought it to tax. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance u/s 43B ought to have been made during the relevant A.Y. Consequently, and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee had made wrong claims under different heads and levied penalty of Rs.34,65,20,080/- which is stated to be equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted before the CIT(A) as under

ANNAPURNA BODDU,WEST GODAVARI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

disallowance of a claim or non-acceptance of a claim would not attract levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 9. Referring

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

disallowing the business loss and depreciation claimed to an extent of Rs.11,69,914/-. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated

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

J VITTAL KUMAR, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 J. Vittal Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acepj 2097G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Smt. Neeju Gupta Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 O R D E R

disallowed and added back for which the assessee has accepted. 2.1 Since, the assessee has concealed the income and, furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, the AO issued penalty notice 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

penalty levied 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SATYANARAYANA CHAVA (HUF), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance, the loss claimed has become a positive income and assessee paid the necessary taxes without further appeal. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

271(1)(c) of the Act are unsustainable in law. Accordingly,\nthe Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to quash the penalty order of\nthe Ld. AO.\n6.\nPer contra, the Learned Departmental Representative\n(“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and\nsubmitted that penalty was rightly levied as the disallowance of\nexpenditure resulted in enhancement