VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. t) The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), 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

u/s. 148, the assessee would not have filed the return of income, especially considering the past conduct of the assessee and therefore, it is a clear case of concealment of income as per Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, penalty in our opinion was rightly levied by the AO and sustained by the ld.CIT

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

u/s. 148, the assessee would not have filed the return of income, especially considering the past conduct of the assessee and therefore, it is a clear case of concealment of income as per Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, penalty in our opinion was rightly levied by the AO and sustained by the ld.CIT

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 222 (7) TMI 1370-Delhi. 21. Penalty proceedings entail

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CETRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 222 (7) TMI 1370-Delhi. 21. Penalty proceedings entail

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 222 (7) TMI 1370-Delhi. 21. Penalty proceedings entail

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

justice and therefore, learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the JCIT, levy penalty of Rs.43,50,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary. 3. Ground no.2

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

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

natural justice. No doubt, under section 129 noted hereinbefore, an assessee has a right to demand that before the successor-ITO continues any proceeding initiated by his predecessor or any part thereof, he should reopen any part of the proceeding or rehear the assessee before any final order of assessment was passed. In the instant case, there was no such

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

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

natural justice. No doubt, under section 129 noted hereinbefore, an assessee has a right to demand that before the successor-ITO continues any proceeding initiated by his predecessor or any part thereof, he should reopen any part of the proceeding or rehear the assessee before any final order of assessment was passed. In the instant case, there was no such

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

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

natural justice. No doubt, under section 129 noted hereinbefore, an assessee has a right to demand that before the successor-ITO continues any proceeding initiated by his predecessor or any part thereof, he should reopen any part of the proceeding or rehear the assessee before any final order of assessment was passed. In the instant case, there was no such

BHAGAWAN SRI BALASAIBABA CENTRAL TRUST,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Central Trust, Sri Nilayam Fort, Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh. Kurnool. Pan : Aaatb3818R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2024

natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The Appellant denies himself liable to be levied an amount being Rs. 6,37,00,000/-, as penalty under section 271D of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in levying a penalty of an amount being

BURADAGUNTA RAJINI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

natural justice, we condone the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO had issued penalty notice u/s. 271

BURADAGUNTA RAJINI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

natural justice, we condone the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO had issued penalty notice u/s. 271

BURADAGUNTA RAJINI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

natural justice, we condone the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO had issued penalty notice u/s. 271

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

In the result, three appeals i

justice.\ndeclined to accept the claim of the assessee that the land in\nquestion is a rural agricultural land and not assessable to tax\nand therefore, the provisions of sec.269SS would not be\napplicable in the case of the assessee. Thereafter, the JCIT\nlevied the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act vide order dated\n23.06.2021 which was challenged by the assessee

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

justice.\n12. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete\nand/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time\nbefore or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n10.\nDuring the assessment proceedings for the year\nunder consideration, the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee has received

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

justice.\n12. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete\nand/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time\nbefore or at the time of hearing of the appeal.\"\n10.\nDuring the assessment proceedings for the year\nunder consideration, the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee has received

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

justice.\n12. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete\nand/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time\nbefore or at the time of hearing of the appeal.\"\n10. During the assessment proceedings for the year\nunder consideration, the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee has received

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PARASURAMAN KARTHIK IYER , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. In the quantum appeals, the Department has raised Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos 1796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer identical grounds, except the quantum of additions. The grounds raised by the Department in the quantum appeals