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.

200/-- which included undisclosed Income of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed written submissions before the CIT(A), which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 4 to 6 of his order. :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad

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.

200/-- which included undisclosed Income of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed written submissions before the CIT(A), which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 4 to 6 of his order. :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad

GUNTI NAVEEN 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.

200/-- which included undisclosed Income of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed written submissions before the CIT(A), which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 4 to 6 of his order. :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad

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.

200/-- which included undisclosed Income of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed written submissions before the CIT(A), which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 4 to 6 of his order. :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. INCREDIBLE INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 270A(9) of the Act, for which penalty was\nsought to be imposed in the case of the assessee company.\n23. We have thoughtfully considered the Ld. AR's\ncontentions in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements\npressed into service by him, and are unable to persuade\nourselves to concur with the same. We say so, for the reason

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

Bench: Us:

200% to 50% i.e. to an amount of Rs.16,74,471/-. Accordingly, the CIT (A) based on his aforesaid observation partly allowed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the learned CIT (A) are culled out as under: Page 3 of 13 ITA No 574 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal Page

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Penalty notices u/s. 271AA, 271BA and 271(1)(c) along 2. with the draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017, would tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. The Ld.TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without properly appreciating the submissions made by the assessee Erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer which was made

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Penalty notices u/s. 271AA, 271BA and 271(1)(c) along 2. with the draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017, would tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. The Ld.TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without properly appreciating the submissions made by the assessee Erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer which was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

200/- and the same were received back by the appellant firm for Land Syndication Activity. 10. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the deposits for the assessment year under consideration are nothing but the advances returned back which were given by Partner for Land Syndication Activity and it represents opening balances. 11. The Ld.CIT (A) ought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

200/- and the same were received back by the appellant firm for Land Syndication Activity. 10. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the deposits for the assessment year under consideration are nothing but the advances returned back which were given by Partner for Land Syndication Activity and it represents opening balances. 11. The Ld.CIT (A) ought