SRINIVAS CHOWDARY VALLABHANENI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s\n271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. (i) Ld CIT(A) also erred in\nlaw in not quashing the penalty levied on the basis of\nstereotyped Notice issued under section 271 read with\nsection 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the\nspecific default committed by the appellant rendering the\nappellant liable to penalty under Income

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on 10 Apache Footwear India Pvt.Ltd. record. Thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at ₹ 156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual matrix, it is seen that

PRATHIBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1424/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 Prathiba Educational The Income Tax Officer, Society, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pin – 500 038 Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaatp4036B. Pin – 500 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By : Ca Sanket Milind Joshi राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961, 3 ITA.No.1424/Hyd./2025 when the said deposit amount was available with the appellant as cash on hand. 7. The learned AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the cash deposits amount of Rs.74,26,500 as the cash deposits are emanated from cash on hand. 8. The appellant

MAHENDER REDDY GANJI,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mahender Reddy Ganji, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, House No.1-600/4, Near Ward – 1, Petrol Pump, Upparapalle, Warangal, Kesamudram, Warangal, Hanamkonda. Telangana. Pan : Bglpg6211P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2024

260/-. Accordingly, the income was reported at 1.18 % of gross turnover which was very low considering nature of business of the assessee. Further, complete details of claim of Purchases and Sales have not been furnished. Hence, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts and has estimated the income as per section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, considering

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) for disallowing interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 29,15,240/- without appreciating the fact that thee assessee has not incurred any expenditure which is directly attributable towards investments in mutual funds. 6. The ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

HEXAGON CAPABILITY CENTER INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271BA, which is premature in nature. :- 4 -: ITA-TP No. 486/Hyd/2021 Hexagon Capability Center India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 7. The grounds that are required to be adjudicated by is ground No. 1 (a to j) relating to interest on trade receivables and ground No. 2 regarding disputed tax credit. 8. Before

IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuay : 2013-14 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1) Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci 8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prashant Meharchandani Revenue By: Shri R. Dipak Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

penalty proceedings u/ s 271AA and 271 BA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

penalties. However, this argument fails to hold weight as during\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n\n40\n\nthe search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, the\nManaging Director and Tax Consultant of the appellant, made key\nadmissions acknowledging discrepancies in income reporting.\nThese admissions pertained to unrecorded cash transactions