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

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

254 of the Act was completed on 30.03.2023 and the action for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act has been initiated in the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, clause (c) of section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable, which provides Six months from the end of the month in which the action for initiation

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

2. The ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that what was not done by the Assessing Officer with in the time limits provided under section 275(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be directed to be done by exercising the revision power under section 263 of the Act as held by various courts

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

2. The ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that what was not done by the Assessing Officer with in the time limits provided under section 275(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be directed to be done by exercising the revision power under section 263 of the Act as held by various courts

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271AA and 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee also raised the additional grounds on 19.11.2019 which read as under : “6. The Ld. AO/DRP

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

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

SINGANAMALA SARALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2. ACIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi High Court.) 3. CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal reported in (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan High Court) 4. CIT Vs. CRK Swamy reported in (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab & Haryana High Court.) 6. Harish Jain

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

u/s 12AA of the Act. In that case, the Hon'ble High\nCourt has held that no doubt, the delay has to be explained with\nproper reasons but it does not mean that every day's delay must\nbe explained. The Court must take a pragmatic view in\nappreciating the reasons attributable to the delay caused to the\nparty

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

271(1)(c) of the Act. That penalty being impossible for concealment of income Page 7 of 16 ITA Nos 20 and 21 of 2025 Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association consequent to scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, it has no application to the present facts involving demand of additional tax on simple processing