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

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct are attracted for concealment of income.\nAddition: Rs.1,83,84,000/-\n19. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition\nby considering the fact that some of the sales are not related to\nthe A.Y under consideration, but pertains to the A.Y 2018-19 and\nfor remaining sales

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct are attracted for concealment of income.\nAddition: Rs.1,83,84,000/-\n19. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition\nby considering the fact that some of the sales are not related to\nthe A.Y under consideration, but pertains to the A.Y 2018-19 and\nfor remaining sales

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

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

201; (j) an order under section 216 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year; (k) an order under section 237; M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (l) an order imposing a penalty under— (i) section 221, or (ii) section 271, section 271A, section 271B, section

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

201; (j) an order under section 216 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year; (k) an order under section 237; M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (l) an order imposing a penalty under— (i) section 221, or (ii) section 271, section 271A, section 271B, section

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

201; (j) an order under section 216 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year; (k) an order under section 237; M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (l) an order imposing a penalty under— (i) section 221, or (ii) section 271, section 271A, section 271B, section

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

201; (j) an order under section 216 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year; (k) an order under section 237; M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (l) an order imposing a penalty under— (i) section 221, or (ii) section 271, section 271A, section 271B, section

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

201; (j) an order under section 216 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year; (k) an order under section 237; M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (l) an order imposing a penalty under— (i) section 221, or (ii) section 271, section 271A, section 271B, section

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer

NADELLA MUNIKANNAIAH ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

u/s. 271(1)(C) of the I.T.Act, 1961 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in not considering the fact that the year of taxability of capital gain in the case of Joint Development Agreement is controversial issue 2 ITA 444/Hyd/2019 and this was a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of such capital gain by appellant

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

271 B of the Act for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act and directed the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 84,316/- vide order under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 11.01.2022. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping