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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. This ground is held to be raised prematurely and hence not adjudicated separately. 6. Ground No.1 of the assessee relates to addition of provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs.11,29,70,000/- in computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The brief facts with regard to this

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

234 D of the Act on the transfer pricing adjustments. 10) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C), 272BA and 271AA of the Act Imposing penalty under section 271(1)(C), 272BA and 271AA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave

KRISHNA HARI GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

u/s. 192 of the Act, contending that Form 26AS does contains the details of TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/- and finally raised a demand of Rs.14,17,500/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 4. Learned First Appellate Authority considering the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal of assessee, but simultaneously gave a direction

THE NIZAMABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 253 of the Act does not specify the order of penalty u/s. 271FA as an appealable order before the ITAT, the assessee was asked to show cause why the appeal not be dismissed as not maintainable. In reply, the assessee has submitted the following in support of the contentions that appeal is maintainable: "8. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL

THE NIZAMABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 253 of the Act does not specify the order of penalty u/s. 271FA as an appealable order before the ITAT, the assessee was asked to show cause why the appeal not be dismissed as not maintainable. In reply, the assessee has submitted the following in support of the contentions that appeal is maintainable: "8. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL

THE NIZAMABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 253 of the Act does not specify the order of penalty u/s. 271FA as an appealable order before the ITAT, the assessee was asked to show cause why the appeal not be dismissed as not maintainable. In reply, the assessee has submitted the following in support of the contentions that appeal is maintainable: "8. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL

THE NIZAMABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 253 of the Act does not specify the order of penalty u/s. 271FA as an appealable order before the ITAT, the assessee was asked to show cause why the appeal not be dismissed as not maintainable. In reply, the assessee has submitted the following in support of the contentions that appeal is maintainable: "8. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL

THE NIZAMABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 253 of the Act does not specify the order of penalty u/s. 271FA as an appealable order before the ITAT, the assessee was asked to show cause why the appeal not be dismissed as not maintainable. In reply, the assessee has submitted the following in support of the contentions that appeal is maintainable: "8. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL

THE NIZAMABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Section 253 of the Act does not specify the order of penalty u/s. 271FA as an appealable order before the ITAT, the assessee was asked to show cause why the appeal not be dismissed as not maintainable. In reply, the assessee has submitted the following in support of the contentions that appeal is maintainable: "8. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

271], wherein it was held as under: "The main thrust in such a situation is whether the commission made to overseas agents, who are non-resident entities, and who render services only at such particular place, is assessable to tax. Sec. 195 very clearly speaks that unless the income is liable to be taxed in India, there is no obligation

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