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

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. 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 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

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

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

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non- resident; (e) an order under

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non- resident; (e) an order under

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non- resident; (e) an order under

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non- resident; (e) an order under

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non- resident; (e) an order under

KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

150/- mentioned against date 27/10, reflects the prize money of the chit. The balance amount of Rs. 55,20,600/- is the chit contributions made by the assessee and his family members. Then the assessee was given an opportunity to produce the evidences for sources of these chit contributions. Since the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate

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

JYOTHIRMOY YAMSANI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000

penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act arose out of the order dated 29.03.2006 and not out of the order dated 19.03.2014. This issue was not considered by the Hon'ble ITAT while deciding the appeal.” The Tribunal was therefore pleased to recall the order of the Tribunal for a limited purpose of rehearing the ground of appeal

KUNTLURU ANIL KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty is required to be levied. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of operating Saw Mill. A Search & Seizure Operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri B. Ram Das Goud and Desagoni Raghupathi Goud Group

KUNTLURU ANIL KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty is required to be levied. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of operating Saw Mill. A Search & Seizure Operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri B. Ram Das Goud and Desagoni Raghupathi Goud Group

ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee bank is dismissed as unadmitted

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2011-12 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Bank, Income Tax, Kadapa. Range - 2 Tirupati. Pan – Aamfa 8921A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seshachalam Revenue By : Shri Pathlevath Peerya Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2018 Order Per D. Manmohan: This Is An Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee, A Cooperative Society. Penalty Levied By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act @ 150% Of The Amount Sought To Be Evaded By Reason Of Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars, Was Confirmed By The Cit(A) & Thus The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Along With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 178 Days. In The Affidavit Filed Along With Form- 36, The Chairman & Chief Managing Director Of The Assessee Bank Deposed As Under: “Our Appeal Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, For The A.Y 2011-12 Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Kurnool On 20.08.2014 & Was Duly Disposed Off & A Certified Copy Of The Appellate Order Was Also Served On Us. During The Process The Said Order Being Examined By Various

150% of the amount sought to be evaded by reason of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, was confirmed by the CIT(A) and thus the assessee preferred an appeal along with an affidavit for condonation of delay of 178 days. In the affidavit filed along with Form- 36, the Chairman and Chief Managing Director of the assessee bank deposed as under

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s