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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) cancelled. Therefore, the appellant did not consider it necessary to file an appeal. 9. However, department has filed appeal against the order of ld.CIT(A). Appeal hearing has been originally fixed for hearing on 26.12.2016 as seen by the notice dt.13.10.2016 of the office of the ITAT. 10. The company has been advised

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

250 Net Demand raised vide 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 05.12.2019 6,14,77,222 Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. DY. COMMISSIONER OF SEAL CIRCL (VENUDHAR GODESI, I.R.S) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad. 8. On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. AO has merely mentioned that “penalty proceedings u/s 271

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. 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

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

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

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

S. VENKATESWARA REDDY,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blevenkateswara Reddy Singani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Chetlamallapuram Village, Kurnool. Kallur Mandal, Kurnool Dist. Pan No. Aqxps 9237 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by treating the deposits into the bank account as income of the assessee. The (Venkateswara Reddy Singani) Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently levied penalty

PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY YELLAREDDYGARI,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blepradeep Kumar Reddy Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Yellareddygari, No. 2-10, Adoni. Ramapuram Village, Thungabhadra Post, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. Pan No. Afbpy 3827 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') determining total (Pradeep Kumar Reddy Yellareddygari) income of Rs. 24,73,680/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently levied penalty of Rs. 6,37,320/-. 3. On appeal

SRI AMARENDER REDDY KONDAKINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleamarender Reddy Kondakini, Vs. Ito, Ward-15(1), H.No. 37-93-222/22, Hyderabad. Road No.4, Sainikvihar, Madhuranagar Colony, Naredmet ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad. Pan No. Ajbpk 9261 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by determining (Sri Amarender Reddy Kondakini) total income at Rs. 9,14,742/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), dated 04/07/2016 and subsequently levied penalty of Rs. 74,795/- 3. On appeal

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

250/- including long term capital gains of 2 I.T.A. NoS. 824 & 825/Hyd/2015 Usha Rani K & K. Bala Vishnu Raju Rs. 1,86,085 and agricultural income of Rs. 4,52,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO passed an order u/s 143(3) on 30/12/2009 denying the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s