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

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

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

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

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assuming for a moment, the assessee came to know the assessment order passed by the A.O only on 25/03/2022, but fact remains that still there is a delay of more than one year from the date she claimed to have received the assessment order or came to know about

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assuming for a moment, the assessee came to know the assessment order passed by the A.O only on 25/03/2022, but fact remains that still there is a delay of more than one year from the date she claimed to have received the assessment order or came to know about

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

NARSINGA RAO ALETI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

Bench: Us:

u/s 271(1)(c) are pending in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 6. The learned Commissioner posted the case fixing the date of hearing on 12.08.2025, however, erred in dismissing the appeal

HEENA KAUSER,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

271(1)(c) for concealing income. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act interalia making an addition of Rs.20,13,280/- to the total income of the assessee towards difference in cash balance and passed assessment order on 19.04.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer

HEENA KAUSER,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

271(1)(c) for concealing income. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act interalia making an addition of Rs.20,13,280/- to the total income of the assessee towards difference in cash balance and passed assessment order on 19.04.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer