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

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

37,075/- • Aggrieved to the penalty order, assessee went to appeal before CIT(A). The Honourable CIT(A) has passed order by giving relief for penalty order stating that as original proceedings have been set aside, the penalty proceedings also as set aside. • Aggrieved to the above, assessee went to appeal before Honourable ITAT with ITA No. ITA 192/H/2023

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

37,12,380/-. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.PCIT had issued the show cause notice dt.10.01.2023 u/s 263 of the Act revising the assessment order as the Assessing Officer has not initiated the penalty u/s 271(1) of the Income Tax Act. 7. In the show cause notice dt.10.01.2023, it was mentioned as under : “2. On examination of records

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

37,12,380/-. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.PCIT had issued the show cause notice dt.10.01.2023 u/s 263 of the Act revising the assessment order as the Assessing Officer has not initiated the penalty u/s 271(1) of the Income Tax Act. 7. In the show cause notice dt.10.01.2023, it was mentioned as under : “2. On examination of records

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.

37,210/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,05,000/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the I.T. Act were issued and served on the assessee to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and furnished the requisite details. 2.1 The Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search operation

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.

37,210/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,05,000/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the I.T. Act were issued and served on the assessee to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and furnished the requisite details. 2.1 The Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search operation

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

37,00,000/- u/s 271D of the Act as the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act as the assessee has accepted the same by way of cash, being the advance amount received back during the relevant assessment year. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, as the amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 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 on 02.06.2022. In his reply

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

10) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the circumstantial evidence that passing of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of Act itself is ample reason of assessee's representation in the course of assessment proceedings, excepting on an occasion, which incident alone need not always necessarily lead

PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY YELLAREDDYGARI,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blepradeep Kumar Reddy Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Yellareddygari, No. 2-10, Adoni. Ramapuram Village, Thungabhadra Post, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. Pan No. Afbpy 3827 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

37,320/-. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following additional ground before the Tribunal. “The ld.CIT(A) ought to have seen that the penalty notice is not valid as the Assessing Officer did not strike off the inappropriate portion and consequently the levy

VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

10,546 (+) EC & SHEC - Rs. 1,33,535 Tax - Rs. 45,84,695 (+) Interest u/s. 234A - Rs. 3,66,776 (+) Interest u/s. 234B - Rs. 16,50,492 (+) Interest u/s. 234C - Rs. 2,31,526 ----------------------- Tax payable - Rs. 68,33,490 ----------------------- However, he has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). 3. In the proceedings, assessee submitted that they were advised

B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2008-09

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). • (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. • Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— • (a) “undisclosed income” means— • (i) any income