KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

251(1) of the Act, i.e, ".....may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment ...." which, thus, does not compulsorily require the CIT(A) to set aside and refer the assessment in every case where it is made u/s 144 of the Act. 15. We thus, in terms

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

251(1) of the Act, i.e, ".....may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment ...." which, thus, does not compulsorily require the CIT(A) to set aside and refer the assessment in every case where it is made u/s 144 of the Act. 15. We thus, in terms

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

251 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has charged the higher rate of taxes as provided u/s 115BBE of the Act despite the fact that the amendment in the Act came

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of retail trading in ophthalmic lenses, frames, sunglasses and medicines had filed its return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 on 29.09.2012, declaring an income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI vs. POLU VENKATASUBBAIAH, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not appear and also did 4

2,00,23,000/- 3 Polu Venkata Subbaiah by treating the investment in immovable property as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated on the ground that, the assessee had concealed particulars of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, show cause notices u/s

M/S ELEM INVESTMENT(P)LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE DICT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is also initiated against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the assessed income is enhanced to the extent of Rs. 58,46,780/-. Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued for the reasons recorded

M/S ELEM INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is also initiated against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the assessed income is enhanced to the extent of Rs. 58,46,780/-. Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued for the reasons recorded

M/S ELEM INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is also initiated against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the assessed income is enhanced to the extent of Rs. 58,46,780/-. Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued for the reasons recorded

M/S ELEM INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is also initiated against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the assessed income is enhanced to the extent of Rs. 58,46,780/-. Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued for the reasons recorded

M/S HIGHGRACE INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is also initiated against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the assessed income is enhanced to the extent of Rs. 58,46,780/-. Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued for the reasons recorded