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

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:

B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member 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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

b) @ 60%\ndepending upon the default and charge against the\nassessee.\n(iii) Existence of 'undisclosed income' is a sine quo non for\nlevying such penalty. which is defined in explanation (c) to\nsection 271AAB.\nFrom the definition of 'undisclosed income it is evident that this\nexpression is given a definite and specific meaning and the word\nhas not been

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

Bench: Us:

B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी., माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.574/Hyd/2023 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kishan Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT Secunderabad Central Circle 2(4) PAN:ABLPA3923C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) यनर्ााररती द्वारा

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

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

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

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

BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

penalty proceedings u/s 270A and 271(1)(b) for non-compliance and misreporting. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment interalia making addition of Rs.2,50,67,943/- towards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dt.28.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before