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

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

34,60,47,806/- which has been treated by the AO as unaccounted sales. 21. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming profit of 3.5 % on sales which is on the higher side. 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

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

34,60,47,806/- which has been treated by the AO as unaccounted sales. 21. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming profit of 3.5 % on sales which is on the higher side. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 28/07/2016 declaring an income of Rs.4,57,977/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited 3 Venkata Ramana Murthy Bollapragada vs ITO scrutiny” under CASS for examining the cash deposits made in his bank account. 3. Thereafter, the AO vide

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

2), Hyderabad. 8. On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. AO has merely mentioned that “penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated separately.” However, there is no recording of satisfaction whatsoever by the Ld. AO as to the specific charge, namely, whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VARSITY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

34,29,478/- which is equal to tax sought to be evaded. 7. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee challenged the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that addition made by the Assessing Officer towards

VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

34,76,570 Tax thereon - Rs. 41,40,614 (+) Surcharge - Rs. 3,10,546 (+) EC & SHEC - Rs. 1,33,535 Tax - Rs. 45,84,695 (+) Interest u/s. 234A - Rs. 3,66,776 (+) Interest u/s. 234B - Rs. 16,50,492 (+) Interest u/s. 234C - Rs. 2,31,526 ----------------------- Tax payable - Rs. 68,33,490 ----------------------- However, he has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that