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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts leading to levy of penalty are, during the relevant FY 2006-07, assessee sold a house property

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Shanta Sriram Infra & Vs. Dcit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs 4180 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 Order Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.:

property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : “WHEREAS in the course of the proceeding before

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”.

property at Rahon Road, Ludhiana, the main reason for levy of penalty was that assessee disclosed lower rates of plots but the same was not supported by any reasons by the AO for taking higher valuation. The learned Departmental Representative admitted that no material or evidence was found during the course of search to support findings of the AO that

GARIKAPATI RAGHURAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the appellant is liable for penalty on this amount. It is seen that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for earlier years where in the amount of hire charges were treated as income from house property and expenses were not allowed. Though the assessee admitted these

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.

property, the assessee was having more than one residential house and the condition to allow the exemption u/s 54F was clarified in the Act and hence, the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Further, the AO observed that the assessee having the knowledge of having two residential houses from which rental income was offered

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. BAPU REDDY JALA , NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

house and later, the cash recovered by the police. As per direction of the court, the Police Department handed over the cash to the Income Tax Department. According to the assessee, in these circumstances the said transaction could not be routed through the bank. 5.0 The assessee's claim that the purchaser intended to deposit the cash and obtain

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

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

house bearing Municipal No.17-1- 336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section

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

property of the previous owner before 1st of April, 2001 means the cost of the asset to previous owner or the RMV of the asset are 1-4-2001 at the option of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee’s father had acquired the shares prior to 1-4-2001 on which bonus shares were also allotted

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

In the result, three appeals i

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that\nthere was no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were\nno assessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJA BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.Nos.596 & 597/Hyd

271, a proper satisfaction must be recorded\nto initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D instead of a mere\nstatement given by the AO in his order dated 21.12.2019.\n9. a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 11,12,13 & 15\ntaken before him.\nb. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to\nhave appreciated that

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts