AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

5 in a way suggests to follow the decision of a High Court, within whose territorial jurisdictional limits the penalty proceedings are taken up. The same reads as under: “Where any High Court decides this issue contrary to the “Departmental View”, the “Departmental View” thereon shall not be operative in the area falling in the jurisdiction of the relevant High

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, 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

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

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

5.\nWe have considered the rival submissions as well as\nrelevant material on record. The JCIT, Range Head-9, Hyderabad\nhas levied the penalty u/sec.271D vide order dated 10.12.2019 as\nunder:\nTo\n“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nShri SAMREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,\n4-34, Karnamguda

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

5.\nWe have considered the rival submissions as well as\nrelevant material on record. The JCIT, Range Head-9, Hyderabad\nhas levied the penalty u/sec.271D vide order dated 10.12.2019 as\nunder:\nTo\n“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nShri SAMREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,\n4-34, Karnamguda

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

5.\nWe have considered the rival submissions as well as\nrelevant material on record. The JCIT, Range Head-9, Hyderabad\nhas levied the penalty u/sec.271D vide order dated 10.12.2019 as\nunder:\nTo\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nShri SAMREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,\n4-34, Karnamguda, IBRAHIMPATNAM

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

5.\nWe have considered the rival submissions as well as\nrelevant material on record. The JCIT, Range Head-9, Hyderabad\nhas levied the penalty u/sec.271D vide order dated 10.12.2019 as\nunder:\nTo\n“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nShri SAMREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,\n4-34, Karnamguda

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as\nrelevant material on record. The JCIT, Range Head-9, Hyderabad\nhas levied the penalty u/sec.271D vide order dated 10.12.2019 as\nunder:\n\"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nTo\nShri SAMREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,\n4-34, Karnamguda

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. During the year under consideration, the assessee had accepted cash loans aggregating to Rs.43,69,500/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the assessee by the Learned

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. During the year under consideration, the assessee had accepted cash loans aggregating to Rs.43,69,500/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the assessee by the Learned

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. During the year under consideration, the assessee had accepted cash loans aggregating to Rs.43,69,500/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the assessee by the Learned

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. During the year under consideration, the assessee had accepted cash loans aggregating to Rs.43,69,500/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the assessee by the Learned

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal\nmay admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it\nis satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the\nappeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee\ntherefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects\nsufficient cause on his part in not presenting the present appeals

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 234E of the Act. Assessee disputing the above demand filed the present appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order dt.15.02.2020 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed the present appeal which was later migrated to the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding as under : “5.1 The appellant was, provided opportunity of being