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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowable u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act being\n30% of Rs.42,55,00,000/- works out to Rs.12,76,50,000/-. I am satisfied that penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

disallowable u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act being\n30% of Rs.42,55,00,000/- works out to Rs.12,76,50,000/-. I am satisfied that penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

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

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271 (SC). 2. Hon'ble CIT (A)'s kind attention is invited to apportionment of alleged on-money and found noted in the loose slip impounded in the premises of DSR. It is submitted that when the receipt of on money is doubt and appellant denied the same in the course of assessment proceeding the question of apportionment does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271 (SC). 2. Hon'ble CIT (A)'s kind attention is invited to apportionment of alleged on-money and found noted in the loose slip impounded in the premises of DSR. It is submitted that when the receipt of on money is doubt and appellant denied the same in the course of assessment proceeding the question of apportionment does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271 (SC). 2. Hon'ble CIT (A)'s kind attention is invited to apportionment of alleged on-money and found noted in the loose slip impounded in the premises of DSR. It is submitted that when the receipt of on money is doubt and appellant denied the same in the course of assessment proceeding the question of apportionment does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271 (SC). 2. Hon'ble CIT (A)'s kind attention is invited to apportionment of alleged on-money and found noted in the loose slip impounded in the premises of DSR. It is submitted that when the receipt of on money is doubt and appellant denied the same in the course of assessment proceeding the question of apportionment does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271 (SC). 2. Hon'ble CIT (A)'s kind attention is invited to apportionment of alleged on-money and found noted in the loose slip impounded in the premises of DSR. It is submitted that when the receipt of on money is doubt and appellant denied the same in the course of assessment proceeding the question of apportionment does

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271 (SC). 2. Hon'ble CIT (A)'s kind attention is invited to apportionment of alleged on-money and found noted in the loose slip impounded in the premises of DSR. It is submitted that when the receipt of on money is doubt and appellant denied the same in the course of assessment proceeding the question of apportionment does