RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

154 of the Act, while deciding the appeal filed by the\nassessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s\n143(1)/143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the findings\nor directions given by the learned CIT (A) in Para 6.2.8 for the A.Y 2020-\n21 is beyond the scope of the powers

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

154 of the Act, while deciding the appeal filed by the\nassessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s\n143(1)/143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the findings\nor directions given by the learned CIT (A) in Para 6.2.8 for the A.Y 2020-\n21 is beyond the scope of the powers

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

Penalty initiated separately proceedings Act, Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1961. u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated The are initiated separately appeal is separately. allowed 2 Vishnu ACWPN3597R ACIT, Assessment Assessee filed No scrutiny No appeal Swaroop Reddy Circle-6, completed u/s 143(3) appeal assessment Narapareddy Hyd on 03.03.2016 against order making addition u/s 143(3). towards LONG

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

154 of the Act dated 18.02.2021. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271A, 271BA and 271G were also initiated under law. 4. However, the assessee had challenged the draft assessment order while filing the proceeding u/s.144C of the Act before the ld.DRP, the ld.DRP had passed direction vide order dated 25.06.2021. It was the contention of the ld.AR and the grounds raised before

VENKATESHWARA RAO DALAPATHIRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

154 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act on 12.07.2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.29,67,295/- by making addition of Rs.8,10,535/- towards income from other sources. Further, in view of determination of the total income of the assessee by estimating 3% profit on cost of goods sold, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding under

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

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were 3 initiated separately due to reporting of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Feeling aggrieved with final assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has approached to the designated authority for MAP resolution under Income Tax Rules

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

154 of the Act or appeal under section 246 of the Act. The assessee is required to choose the right course of action diligently which depends upon different facts and circumstances. 25.5 Nevertheless, the object for making the adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or framing the assessment under section

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated by the learned Assessing Officer on the addition. 3 Granules India Limited 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -12, Hyderabad erred by confirming the erroneous calculation of interest made by the learned Assessing officer. 8. The Appellant craves your honors leave

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

u/s 12AA of the Act. In that case, the Hon'ble High\nCourt has held that no doubt, the delay has to be explained with\nproper reasons but it does not mean that every day's delay must\nbe explained. The Court must take a pragmatic view in\nappreciating the reasons attributable to the delay caused to the\nparty

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. ANJANEYA RAVI VARMA PRASAD KANTHATE, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section Income Income Erroneous which reflected assessed by assessment received in Form learned of excess 26AS Assessing income Officer (double the amount as reflected in 26AS) A B B-A MNR Educational 192A 5,59,154 11,18,308 5,59,154 Trust Hyderabad Race 194BB 63,600 1,27,200 63,600 Club ECHS Station HQ 194J

ANJANEYA RAVI VARMA PRASAD KANTHATE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section Income Income Erroneous which reflected assessed by assessment received in Form learned of excess 26AS Assessing income Officer (double the amount as reflected in 26AS) A B B-A MNR Educational 192A 5,59,154 11,18,308 5,59,154 Trust Hyderabad Race 194BB 63,600 1,27,200 63,600 Club ECHS Station HQ 194J

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

penalty u/s 234B of the Act by observing that the cash seized should have been adjusted against the self assessment tax payable with the return of income. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that interest charged u/s 234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserves

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