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

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

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 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

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

penalty proceedings under section 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

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

penalty proceedings under section 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

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

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 XIV-B

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 XIV-B

KERELE BALWANTH REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.43/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kerele Balwanth Reddy, VS. Income Tax Officer, Ranga Reddy. Ward-8(2), PAN: APFPB8261E Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.232/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kerele Balwanth Reddy, VS. Income

KERELE BALWANTH REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.43/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kerele Balwanth Reddy, VS. Income Tax Officer, Ranga Reddy. Ward-8(2), PAN: APFPB8261E Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.232/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kerele Balwanth Reddy, VS. Income

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

B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 166/HYD/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Secunderabad Club, Income Tax Officer, HYDERABAD Vs Ward-10(2), [PAN: AAAAT2543E] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri S.Rama Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR Date of Hearing : 22-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement