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

270A and 271 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld.DR that the penalty proceedings can be initiated by the ld.PCIT and there is no illegality in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the limited purposes of initiating the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. We have heard the rival submissions

VENKATESHWARA RAO DALAPATHIRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s. 270A of I.T Act dated 28.07.2021 for AY 2017-18, is dismissed on merits as not maintainable as per law as above.” 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. CA, B Satyanarayana Murthy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the order passed by the Assessing

BHEL LCC SOCIETY LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty order passed u/s 270A of the I.T. Act for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 12 ITA No 732 of 2025 BHEL LCC SOCIETY Ltd Page 2 of 12 ITA No 732 of 2025 BHEL LCC SOCIETY Ltd 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed

KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which placed an obligation on the Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction at the stage of initiating penalty proceedings, no such obligation was cast upon him in so far as the initiation of penalty u/s 270A

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. INCREDIBLE INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 270A(9) of the Act, for which penalty was\nsought to be imposed in the case of the assessee company.\n23. We have thoughtfully considered the Ld. AR's\ncontentions in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements\npressed into service by him, and are unable to persuade\nourselves to concur with the same. We say so, for the reason

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

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

270A, 271BA, 271AA and 271G of the Act based on Draft Assessment Order without passing a final order as required under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and filed the return declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited

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

270A of the Act and, therefore, the reasons explained\nby the assessee are factually not disputed because the\ndecision to file the appeal has been taken only after the\npenalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee\nhas explained the reasons for delay that only after the levy of\npenalty, the assessee has an imminent risk of facing

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

271 B of the Act for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act and directed the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 84,316/- vide order under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 11.01.2022. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2) , HYDERABD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

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