MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

263 of the Act revising the assessment order as the Assessing Officer has not initiated the penalty u/s 271

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

263 of the Act revising the assessment order as the Assessing Officer has not initiated the penalty u/s 271

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

In the result, three appeals i

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other\norders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court\nor Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275,\npresupposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision\nproceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order\nor revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these\nproceedings

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a real estate agent, filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,750/- under the head “Income from other sources’ and claiming short term capital loss of Rs.3

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a real estate agent, filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,750/- under the head “Income from other sources’ and claiming short term capital loss of Rs.3

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted part relief by deleting the addition of Rs.1122 crores by observing as under : “7.2. I have considered the assessment order, order u/s.263 passed by the TT, the submissions

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted part relief by deleting the addition of Rs.1122 crores by observing as under : “7.2. I have considered the assessment order, order u/s.263 passed by the TT, the submissions

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

revision u/s 263 to substitute his own view. We certainly agree with such views but the facts of present appeal are different and do not warrant application of those decisions for the very reason that the Ld. DR carried 8 Spectra Equipments Pvt. Ltd. us to the assessment-order wherein the Ld. AO has made following reporting

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 of the Act. In any case, it is not permissible for the assessee to raise a fresh claim while filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 153A claiming for a fresh deduction. It was submitted that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) it is essential to file the return of income

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 of the Act. In any case, it is not permissible for the assessee to raise a fresh claim while filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 153A claiming for a fresh deduction. It was submitted that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) it is essential to file the return of income

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 of the Act. In any case, it is not permissible for the assessee to raise a fresh claim while filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 153A claiming for a fresh deduction. It was submitted that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) it is essential to file the return of income

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

penalty u/s 234B of the Act by observing that the cash seized should have been adjusted against the self assessment tax payable with the return of income. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that interest charged u/s 234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case