MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

220 (Del.). The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of M/s. Sireesha Pochareddy in ITA No.1270/Hyd/2024, dated 12/093/2025. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to ground nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the assessee’s appeal submitted that the penalty levied under section 271DA

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

220\n(Del.). The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the ITAT\nHyderabad Benches in the case of M/s. Sireesha Pochareddy in\nITA No.1270/Hyd/2024, dated 12/093/2025.\n11.\nThe learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to\nground nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the assessee's appeal submitted that the\npenalty levied under section 271DA

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the\nΑ

220\n(Del.). The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the ITAT\nHyderabad Benches in the case of M/s. Sireesha Pochareddy in\nITA No.1270/Hyd/2024, dated 12/093/2025.\n11.\nThe learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to\nground nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the assessee's appeal submitted that the\npenalty levied under section 271DA

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

220 (SC)), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The fact that even voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as held

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

220 (SC)), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The fact that even voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as held

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

penalty u/s 234B of the Act by observing that the cash seized should have been adjusted against the self assessment tax payable with the return of income. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that interest charged u/s 234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserves

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied if the return of income is at a 10551 i.e., in view of the amendment by the Finance Actl 2002 with effect from April 1, 2003 in Explanation 4 to the section. In deciding the matter, the hon'ble court referred to various precedents. The following section of the judgment

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Konatham Kotireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Atupk6883E Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

271 B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in ignoring the impeccable documentary evidence filed a letter from the Principal Page 1 of 7 ITA 245 of 2023 Konatham Kotireddy Dealer viz. M/s. Anika Bajaj

MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

penalty proceedings ix] s 271 (1 )( c) initiated by the Assessing Officer, when the appel1ant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor resorted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8) The appel1ant may add or alter or mend or modify or substitute or delete and/ or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

penalty proceedings ix] s 271 (1 )( c) initiated by the Assessing Officer, when the appel1ant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor resorted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8) The appel1ant may add or alter or mend or modify or substitute or delete and/ or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

penalties. However, this argument fails to hold weight as during\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n\n40\n\nthe search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, the\nManaging Director and Tax Consultant of the appellant, made key\nadmissions acknowledging discrepancies in income reporting.\nThese admissions pertained to unrecorded cash transactions

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

271 1,350\n8,132\n12,46,470\n16\n22,141 6,186 1,743\n3,319\n25,91,450\n17\n20,527 2,586 965\n4,416\n22,45,460\n18\n14,514 2