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

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

46,35,604/-) in cash from Incredible India Projects Private Ltd. Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. further noted in the assessment order that this information will be forwarded to the JCIT, Central Range – 2, Hyderabad, for taking necessary action in connection with the above sale of land for violating the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income

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.

46,37,210/- 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

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.

46,37,210/- 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

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. 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

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. 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

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

PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K 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: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

U/s 271(1). 5. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. This ground is held to be raised prematurely and hence not adjudicated separately. 6. Ground No.1 of the assessee relates to addition of provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs.11,29,70,000/- in computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The brief facts with regard to this

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen