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

section 271(1) of the Act to record satisfaction and impose penalty and hence, the PCIT/CIT has power to direct the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction while exercising revisionary powers u/s 263

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

In the result, three appeals i

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

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

263 or assessment order or other\norders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court\nor Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275,\npresupposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision\nproceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order\nor revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these\nproceedings

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

1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg

PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

U/s 271(1). 5. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a real estate agent, filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,750/- under the head “Income from other sources’ and claiming short term capital loss of Rs.3

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a real estate agent, filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,750/- under the head “Income from other sources’ and claiming short term capital loss of Rs.3

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted part relief by deleting the addition of Rs.1122 crores by observing as under : “7.2. I have considered the assessment order, order u/s.263 passed by the TT, the submissions

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted part relief by deleting the addition of Rs.1122 crores by observing as under : “7.2. I have considered the assessment order, order u/s.263 passed by the TT, the submissions

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