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.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and sent a reply on which the penalty was levied. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the assessee by the defective nature of the notice as he had full opportunity before the ITO to set out his defense against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 20. Referring

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. Needless to say that the assessee should be afforded proper opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings taken up in consequence of this order. The assessee is at liberty to furnish necessary evidence, if any to the Assessing Officer during

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. Needless to say that the assessee should be afforded proper opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings taken up in consequence of this order. The assessee is at liberty to furnish necessary evidence, if any to the Assessing Officer during

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

113), where again it was held that since the penalty notice u/s. 271AAB was vague, penalty cannot be levied. Further, ld CIT(A) has referred to the judgment of Pr. CIT vs Sandeep Chandak 405 ITR 648 (All.). This judgment was discussed and distinguished in the case of Ravi Mathur vs DCIT (TS-8004-ITAT- 2018(Jaipur

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

113), where again it was held that since the penalty notice u/s. 271AAB was vague, penalty cannot be levied. Further, ld CIT(A) has referred to the judgment of Pr. CIT vs Sandeep Chandak 405 ITR 648 (All.). This judgment was discussed and distinguished in the case of Ravi Mathur vs DCIT (TS-8004-ITAT- 2018(Jaipur

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under: 9.3 After going through all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments put forth by the AR of the appellant the conclusions that can be arrived at are: i. The assessee filed all details regarding land transaction along with the return of income declaring

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

section 37(1) of the act. Bank Loan sanctioned for specific purpose and the same is compiled by assessee. 3.6.Erred in not appreciating the fact that the funds granted by the bank are for specific business purpose on the basis of feasibility and technical study wherein the stock and debtors were considered for grating the funds and it cannot

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

113] 8. The Appellant most respectfully prays that as per the submission made above and the judicial precedents cited, the draft order of the learned Assessing Officer is not as per the mandate of the provisions of section 144C and hence the draft assessment order and demand notice may be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

INDRANI PRASAD ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

SINGANAMALA SARALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

u/s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee had received sales consideration over and above the registered sale deed, in cash, which was not accounted for by the assessee amounting to Rs.9 Crores. Hence, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 25.09.2021 making the addition

FACEBOOK INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. It is prayed that the Ld. AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Service Sector, IT Enabled Services and BPO Providers, back office support services

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271AA and 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee also raised the additional grounds on 19.11.2019 which read as under : “6. The Ld. AO/DRP

DWARKA PRASAD JHAWAR,ADILABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -1, MANCHERIAL

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Dwaraka Prasad Jhawar, Adilabad. Pan Aiupj 9582G …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2016-17 Arises From The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.30.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21 / 1031963437(1) In 2 Proceedings Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) assessment dt.30.11.2018 framed in furtherance to the search / seizure operation dt.26.05.2016; as an erroneous one so far as prejudice to the interest of revenue on account of the latter is alleged failure in initiating 271AAB penalty. Mr. Sai vehemently contended in support of the PCIT’s revision directions that such an inaction on the Assessing

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

113,63,24,502/-. It was submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelly Products (261 ITR 367), the income of the assessee cannot be assessed at lower than the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. Further, it was submitted that assuming in a hypothetical

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

113,63,24,502/-. It was submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelly Products (261 ITR 367), the income of the assessee cannot be assessed at lower than the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. Further, it was submitted that assuming in a hypothetical

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

113,63,24,502/-. It was submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shelly Products (261 ITR 367), the income of the assessee cannot be assessed at lower than the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. Further, it was submitted that assuming in a hypothetical

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13