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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

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.

127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3,02,94,816/-, for which assessee gave reply. Thereafter, Assessing Officer concluded 3 that the contentions of the assessee

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CETRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

127 & 128/Hyd/2025 Sunil Kumar Ahuja “1. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not sustainable in law that

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

127 & 128/Hyd/2025 Sunil Kumar Ahuja “1. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not sustainable in law that

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

127 & 128/Hyd/2025 Sunil Kumar Ahuja “1. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not sustainable in law that

MAYUR STONES, HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were subsequently sent to the email ID given in Form 35 which were received by the assessee and only then the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal

MAYUR STONES, HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were subsequently sent to the email ID given in Form 35 which were received by the assessee and only then the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) in the assessment order itself, for both "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" and "concealment of income." Crucially, these penalty proceedings were kept pending and not concluded, awaiting the outcome of the appeal. Argument: This action reveals a fundamental flaw in the AO's approach. By initiating penalty during the assessment, the AO demonstrated a pre- concluded guilty

COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section\n271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Act.\n12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing\nwith the approval of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”\n3.\nThe assessee company did not file it's return of\nincome u/sec.139 of the Income

HEENA KAUSER,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTER CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

127 on 22.05.2019, a notice under section 153A dated 09.07.2019 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 06.01.2021, declaring Rs. 6,94,910/- as total income, inclusive of commission and interest. 3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, certain discrepancies were found by the Assessing Officer in the books of account regarding a cash balance

HEENA KAUSER,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

127 on 22.05.2019, a notice under section 153A dated 09.07.2019 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 06.01.2021, declaring Rs. 6,94,910/- as total income, inclusive of commission and interest. 3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, certain discrepancies were found by the Assessing Officer in the books of account regarding a cash balance

HEENA KAUSER,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

127 on 22.05.2019, a notice under section 153A dated 09.07.2019 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 06.01.2021, declaring Rs. 6,94,910/- as total income, inclusive of commission and interest. 3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, certain discrepancies were found by the Assessing Officer in the books of account regarding a cash balance

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

penalties. However, this argument fails to hold weight as during\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n\n40\n\nthe search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, the\nManaging Director and Tax Consultant of the appellant, made key\nadmissions acknowledging discrepancies in income reporting.\nThese admissions pertained to unrecorded cash transactions

ASIF ALI MOHD,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 282 of the Act r.w. rule 127 of the Rules, and therefore Appellant could not put forth his case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.18,30,200 as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that