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

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

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered

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.

10. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals vs. CIT reported in 349 ITR 196, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the AO should, before imposing penalty, record in the assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income

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.

10. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals vs. CIT reported in 349 ITR 196, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the AO should, before imposing penalty, record in the assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income

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.

10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

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.

10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

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

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 271(1)(c), the appellant has failed to offer an explanation regarding the non-disclosure of income in this year, while filing the return u/s 139 and also return u/s 153A. It was only during the assessment proceedings consequent to Search u/s 132, the undisclosed income was admitted. In view of the above discussion, the action of the Assessing

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.

10. Referring to the copy of the assessment order, he submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. Jt. CIT vide writ petition No.44285 of 2022 dated

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.

10. Referring to the copy of the assessment order, he submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. Jt. CIT vide writ petition No.44285 of 2022 dated

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

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

27 of the paper book wherein the notice issued u/s 274 was placed. The above said notice reads as under : - Left intentionally - 7 iv) The addition was made primarily based on the statement of Mr. Vijay Kumar, Managing Director of M/s. K.V.K Energy and Infrastructure, one of the beneficial shareholders in the assessee company. The ld.AR further contended that

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

27 of the paper book wherein the notice issued u/s 274 was placed. The above said notice reads as under : - Left intentionally - 7 iv) The addition was made primarily based on the statement of Mr. Vijay Kumar, Managing Director of M/s. K.V.K Energy and Infrastructure, one of the beneficial shareholders in the assessee company. The ld.AR further contended that

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

10 of 15 ITA No.606 of 2022 Bapu Reddy Jala 13. A perusal of the assessment order nowhere shows that the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari

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

10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act the order of levy of penalty is not valid. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT (supra) has considered an identical

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

27-08-2015 for Rs. 34,00,000/- being eligible for claim for benefit U/s 54F of the Act. The appellant prays that the penalty levied U/s 271D be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or after the above ground of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Succinctly

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 8 concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice