APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B of the Act, dated 15/03/2022 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.76,44,980/-. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/09/2022 imposed upon the assessee company penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B of the Act, dated 15/03/2022 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.76,44,980/-. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/09/2022 imposed upon the assessee company penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B of the Act, dated 15/03/2022 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.76,44,980/-. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/09/2022 imposed upon the assessee company penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B of the Act, dated 15/03/2022 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.76,44,980/-. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/09/2022 imposed upon the assessee company penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B of the Act, dated 15/03/2022 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.76,44,980/-. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/09/2022 imposed upon the assessee company penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271

KANAKA CHALAM VOLETY,CALIFORNIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

144B 3 Kanaka Chalam Volety of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.74,04,115/- vide order dated 11.01.2024. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, were initiated for non-compliance with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.08.2023 and 25.09.2023. Accordingly, show cause notice u/s

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

144B of the Act, dated 04-03-2024, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we herein set aside the captioned TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. appeal arising from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024 to his file with a direction to decide the same

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

144B of the Act, dated 04-03-2024, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we herein set aside the captioned TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. appeal arising from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024 to his file with a direction to decide the same

NARSINGA RAO ALETI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

Bench: Us:

penalty of Rs. 10,50,600/- as there are no proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are pending in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 6. The learned Commissioner posted the case fixing the date

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

GOVIND GOUD DADIVELA,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

144B of the Act, dated 14.02.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.6,13,65,630/-. Govind Goud, Dadivela, Mahabubnagar. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the documents/material that were filed in the course of the proceedings before him, partly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR vs. DADIVELA GOVIND GOUD, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

144B of the Act, dated 14.02.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.6,13,65,630/-. Govind Goud, Dadivela, Mahabubnagar. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the documents/material that were filed in the course of the proceedings before him, partly

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

penalty under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act on 11/07/2025 was dropped in its new email account,\ni.e., \"accounts@virchowpetro.com”, therefore, in our view the same\nexplain the reason leading to the delay in filing the preset appeal, which,\nthus, merits to be condoned. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach\nshould be taken while considering an application seeking condonation

SHREEJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shreeji Foods Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aalcs2695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income. Thereafter, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Thereafter penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were

RAIKANTI KRISHNA REDDY,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Raikanti Krishna Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18-392/B, Shadnagar, Ward – 1, Bhagiratha Colony, Mahabubnagar. Mahabubnagar, Telangana – 509216. Pan : Alkpr2991J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer, then the intimation issued by the CPC u/s 143(1)(a) stands merged with the scrutiny assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and should have no independent existence so long scrutiny assessment order is in existence. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Khandelwal Rubber