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

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

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

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. 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 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

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

ANNAPURNA BODDU,WEST GODAVARI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee to explain as to why the Long-Term Capital Gain should not be added to the total income of the assessee. He also confronted the statement recorded of his son Sri Boddu Srinivas, u/s

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

penalty of Rs. 46,00,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions and made detailed submissions along with case law it relied upon. However, Ld.CIT(A) did not agree with the contentions. Ld.CIT(A) examined the provisions of Sections 271(1)(c) & 10(38

A.V.K. VISWANADHA RAJU,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

38,340/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 11,61,400/- by adding undisclosed investment in house property for an amount of Rs. 8,23,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 2.1 A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 23/10/2007

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

section 10(38) of the Act of Rs. 23,08,721 was claimed. 9. Thus, the Assessing Officer concluded that mere investment of Rs.24,000/- is returned, an income of Rs.23,32,721/- which is 97 times of investment and the increase is 9620%. In view of the above observation, Assessing Officer Page

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.84,610/- was disallowed and added back. 7. Disallowance of ROC Charges paid for increase in authorized share capital: 7.1 The AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.10,02,600/- to Profit & Loss account towards Registration 6 I.T.A. No. 1352/Hyd/14

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. INCREDIBLE INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10,35,484/-\nwere shown as advance to landlords for the year ending on\n31.03.2016, advance to landlords for the year ending on\n31.03.2017 and \"Pre-Paid development expenses\" for the\nyear ending on 31.03.2017 respectively. However, these are\nactually cash payments made to Mis Aurora Educational\nSociety, which were not allowable as expenses. Please offer\nyour comments.\nAns

JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar Gupta Page 4 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar Gupta Page 4 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 143(3) of the Act was completed by order dated 03/11/2016 by making an addition of Rs. 36,83,077/- which represented the sale consideration of shares, under the head "Income from Other Sources." Page 2 of 8 ITA No.2093/Hyd/2017 & 455/Hyd/2020 Tarun Kumar Goyal (HUF) 4. Aggrieved by such an ac"on of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF) ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 143(3) of the Act was completed by order dated 03/11/2016 by making an addition of Rs. 36,83,077/- which represented the sale consideration of shares, under the head "Income from Other Sources." Page 2 of 8 ITA No.2093/Hyd/2017 & 455/Hyd/2020 Tarun Kumar Goyal (HUF) 4. Aggrieved by such an ac"on of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred