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 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. 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. 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

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

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

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

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 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.

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 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

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.

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

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

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

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

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 92CA of the IT Act, directions given by DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act and “Give Effect to Directions u/s 144C order of the TPO dt.19.03.2021, the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.49,99,97,796/-. Thereafter