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

reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the reasons stated as per which, the income chargeable to tax had been escaped the assessment on account of non-disclosure of consideration paid for purchase of property. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer

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

reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the reasons stated as per which, the income chargeable to tax had been escaped the assessment on account of non-disclosure of consideration paid for purchase of property. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer

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.

assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither

MOOLA PADMAJA,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.

assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither

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

reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the reasons stated as per which, the income chargeable to tax had been escaped the assessment on account of non-disclosure of consideration paid for purchase of property. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, dated 30.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

reopening of an assessment already completed u/s 143(3). 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad erred by confirming the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer [being the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad] u/s 143(3) r.w.s

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

u/s.\n147/148 of the Act is invalid since the assessment was reopened on\nthe issue which was already considered at the time of completion of\noriginal assessment and therefore reopening of assessment on the\nsame issue is mere a change of opinion and hence invalid.\nGround No.12:\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no tangible\nmaterial

INVEST SMART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 331/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aftpg1095F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raja Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Did Not File Its Return Of Income Nor

reopened after recording reasons and after taking statutory prior approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee. However, no return was filed by the assessee nor was any response to the statutory notices issued. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act and determined

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

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

271 would not show that the proceedings in such a case cannot be initiated by the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer in such an event can refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after initiating the proceedings. It would, indeed, be the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings regarding

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

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

271 would not show that the proceedings in such a case cannot be initiated by the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer in such an event can refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after initiating the proceedings. It would, indeed, be the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings regarding

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

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

271 would not show that the proceedings in such a case cannot be initiated by the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer in such an event can refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after initiating the proceedings. It would, indeed, be the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings regarding

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty provisions u/s 271 B and reference can be made 142(2A) for the special audit may be looked into.” 6.1. On the basis of the above, it was submitted by the ld.DR that the Assessing Officer has formed prima facie reason to believe on the basis of material available on record that there was an under assessment or escapement

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)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the expenses disallowed claimed at Rs.19

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)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the expenses disallowed claimed at Rs.19

BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

penalty proceedings u/s 270A and 271(1)(b) for non-compliance and misreporting. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment interalia making addition of Rs.2,50,67,943/- towards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dt.28.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of Sri B.Rama Raju." From the above, it is seen that the assessment was reopened on account of unexplained investment in FDs. The addition made on the above account is considered and deleted vide decision in Para- 6(supra). As the above addition is deleted, the other additions made

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of Sri B.Rama Raju." From the above, it is seen that the assessment was reopened on account of unexplained investment in FDs. The addition made on the above account is considered and deleted vide decision in Para- 6(supra). As the above addition is deleted, the other additions made

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU,KUKATPALLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.177/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Bachiraju, Ward 11(1) Kukatapally Hyderabad Pan:Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Kiran Manohar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/04/2024

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 by assessing the total income at Rs.1,03,18,750/-. Thereafter, the Page 2 of 5 ITA NO 177 of 2024 Suresh Kumar Bachiraju Assessing Officer 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

reopened\nunder section 147 of the Act and reassessment was completed\nunder section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on\n05.12.2019, wherein expenditure of Rs.11,53,67,882/- was\ndisallowed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) and the\ntotal income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.12,78,56,182/-.\nOn the aforesaid disallowance of expenditure