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

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

20. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd (Supra). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in light of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act and the limitation provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act, held as under

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.

20, 21, 22 and 23 situated at Dargah Hussain Shahwali(v), Serlingampally(M), Ranga Reddy district. The assessee along with other co-owners entered into a land development agreement with M/s. Western Constructions on 03.05.2007. As per the supplementary development agreement dated 26.03.2010 the landlords were supposed to get 40% of the total built up area of 10

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.

20, 21, 22 and 23 situated at Dargah Hussain Shahwali(v), Serlingampally(M), Ranga Reddy district. The assessee along with other co-owners entered into a land development agreement with M/s. Western Constructions on 03.05.2007. As per the supplementary development agreement dated 26.03.2010 the landlords were supposed to get 40% of the total built up area of 10

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

20. The assessee claims that the penalty order is invalid in law as the same is time barred. Admittedly, in the present case, the penalty proceedings were triggered from the A.O with a reference to the Jt. CIT for taking necessary action for imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Act. The A.O had sent information regarding the violation

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

20. The assessee claims that the penalty order is invalid in law as the same is time barred. Admittedly, in the present case, the penalty proceedings were triggered from the A.O with a reference to the Jt. CIT for taking necessary action for imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Act. The A.O had sent information regarding the violation

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

10. The assessee had submitted reply to the ld.PCIT, however, the ld.PCIT was not convinced by the submissions made by the assessee and has passed the following directions : “18. In view of all the above, it is held that the objections raised by the assessee vide it's letter dated 17.01.2023 in response to notice u/s. 263 dated

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

10. The assessee had submitted reply to the ld.PCIT, however, the ld.PCIT was not convinced by the submissions made by the assessee and has passed the following directions : “18. In view of all the above, it is held that the objections raised by the assessee vide it's letter dated 17.01.2023 in response to notice u/s. 263 dated

SRI RAJA REDDY NALLA,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Raja Reddy Nalla Vs. Add. C. I. T. Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aaxpn3602Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Venkateshwar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Reddy :Pacchica, Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Ablpp0688B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy Cot(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In These Two Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

271 D of the Act were initiated for violating the provisions of Section 2699SS and penalty order u/s, 271D of the Ac was passed on 07.06.2022 by the Addl. CIT levying a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The appellant had agreed that he had received Rs. 40,00,000/-in cash as his share of advance towards sale

SRI VENKATESHWAR REDDY PACCHICA,WARANGAL vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE1, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Raja Reddy Nalla Vs. Add. C. I. T. Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aaxpn3602Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Venkateshwar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Reddy :Pacchica, Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Ablpp0688B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy Cot(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In These Two Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

271 D of the Act were initiated for violating the provisions of Section 2699SS and penalty order u/s, 271D of the Ac was passed on 07.06.2022 by the Addl. CIT levying a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The appellant had agreed that he had received Rs. 40,00,000/-in cash as his share of advance towards sale

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the\nΑ

10 in D M Manasvi vs\nCommissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would\ncast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra.\n\"We are also not impressed by the argument\nadvanced on behalf of the appellant that the\nproceedings for the imposition of penalty were\ninitiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by\nthe Inspecting Assistant

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

10 in D M Manasvi vs\nCommissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would\ncast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra.\n\"We are also not impressed by the argument\nadvanced on behalf of the appellant that the\nproceedings for the imposition of penalty were\ninitiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by\nthe Inspecting Assistant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI vs. PALAKALA GUNASEKHAR, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

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

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI vs. PALLAM REDDY SREELAKSHMI, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

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

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal