ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

E R PER BENCH : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017- 18 arise from the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad dt.22.02.2023 invoking proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA Nos.230 and 231/Hyd/2023 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.230/Hyd/2023 read

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

E R PER BENCH : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017- 18 arise from the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad dt.22.02.2023 invoking proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA Nos.230 and 231/Hyd/2023 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.230/Hyd/2023 read

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

22. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AD made an addition of Rs. 1,21,11,673/ _ without any evidence to show 'that the appel1ant had earned such income. 23. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appel1ant has not concealed any income and hence the initiation of penalty

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

22. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AD made an addition of Rs. 1,21,11,673/ _ without any evidence to show 'that the appel1ant had earned such income. 23. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appel1ant has not concealed any income and hence the initiation of penalty

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 2(22)(e), an amount of Rs. ITA No.1110/Hyd/2018 3 16,68,33,979/- is treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of M/s Agarwal Industries Pvt Ltd in the hands of the assessee company and added to the income returned. In view of the above additions made, the assessee has concealed the particulars of income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI vs. PALAKALA GUNASEKHAR, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These two Revenue’s appeals for AY.2017-18 arise from the CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam’s order(s); both dated 07-10- 2020 passed in appeal Nos.113 & 112 / 2019-20 / CIT(A)-3 / VSP / 2019-20 & 2020-21, involving proceedings u/s.271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard both the parties

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI vs. PALLAM REDDY SREELAKSHMI, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These two Revenue’s appeals for AY.2017-18 arise from the CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam’s order(s); both dated 07-10- 2020 passed in appeal Nos.113 & 112 / 2019-20 / CIT(A)-3 / VSP / 2019-20 & 2020-21, involving proceedings u/s.271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard both the parties

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

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

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

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

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

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

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

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

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

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

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