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

Bench: Us:

Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the notice u/s 148A(b) is validly issued when

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

Bench: Us:

Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the notice u/s 148A(b) is validly issued when

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.344/Hyd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year 2013-2014 | M/S. Cognizance | Constructions Private | Limited, Hyderabad. | Pin – 500 075. Telangana. | Pan Aadcc1366M | (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ca Srinivas Maddury राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The

penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Act. 12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the approval of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” 3. The assessee company did not file it's return of income u/sec.139 of the Income

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

CHANDINI DUVVURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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)

u/s 148, by the jurisdictional officer would render the subsequent assessment null and void, as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in their latest case of Prakash Pandurang Patil in Special Leave Petition ( Civil) Diary No.39689 of 2025. 6. Any other ground that may be raised during the appellate proceedings with the kind prior permission from

SANKARLAL NAIK KARAMSI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumara N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1257/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sankarlal Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer Karamsi, Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Ancpk0584A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case.

148A of the IT Act, therefore, the notice u/s 148 is to be held invalid, therefore, an order is on the foundation of an invalid notice is to be held as null and void. 4. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the deposits aggregating to Rs.3,56,91,473/- are partly transactions of the assessee from the real

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

271 1,350 8,132 12,46,470 16 22,141 6,186 1,743 3,319 25,91,450