MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee could not explain non- compliance with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and further on the ground that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the learned CIT (A) and from the above

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee could not explain non- compliance with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and further on the ground that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the learned CIT (A) and from the above

VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

exempt from levy of income tax under the normal provisions, thus there can be a bonafide mistake. Moreover, as seen from the penalty order, AO himself stated that assessee has made a wrong claim. Making a claim which is not allowable under the provisions of the Act does not attract the provisions of penalty u/s. 271

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2017-18. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the penalty shall not be levied for failure to furnish return of income for the A.Y 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had also called upon the assessee to explain as Page 2 of 9 ITA No.848

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 levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of exempt

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

penalty of Rs.24,00,000/-by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act which has been confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. Page 1 of 17 ITA No 1 of 2023 Annapurna Boddu 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that

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

exemption for past many\nyears and also explained the reasons for delay in filing Form 108\nfor this year and would have remanded to the AO to condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly

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

exemption for past many\nyears and also explained the reasons for delay in filing Form 108\nfor this year and would have remanded to the AO to condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly

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

In the result, three appeals i

exemption for past many\nyears and also explained the reasons for delay in filing Form 108\nfor this year and would have remanded to the AO to condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly

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

exemption for past many\nyears and also explained the reasons for delay in filing Form 108\nfor this year and would have remanded to the AO to condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly

APSARA BHAVANASAI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Years: 2008-09 Apsara Bhavanasai, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Ahvpb 3872H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2019 O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 1, Hyderabad, Dated, 26/03/2018 For Ay 2008-09, Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 26/03/2009 admitting total income of Rs. 24,325/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) prima-facie accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under

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

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered

TULIP GRANITES PRIVATE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 Tulip Granites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabct 7314E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasulu Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

exemption u/s.10B was recomputed accordingly. 2.4 When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) as well before the ITAT, he upheld the action of AO. 3. Later, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

exempt from taxes. While rejecting the taxability or otherwise of the income from the fund as not an issue for discussion, Ld.CIT(A), however, considered that assessee has bonafidely made a wrong claim and accordingly, deleted the penalty stating that the facts do not warrant imposition of penalty u/s. 271

MOHA NARENDRA GANDHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act confirmed by the CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad, dated 6.6.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an employee of M/s.Rais Arif Meman, Bangalore, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 electronically on 31.08.2015, declaring an income of Rs.3,63,600/- comprising of salary, LTCG

SYNFOSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2011-12 Synfosys Business Vs. Income Tax Officer, Solutions Ltd., Ward-3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcs 3590 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

penalty of Rs. 32,99,764/- in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company engaged in software services, filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 30/09/2011 claiming exemption U/s