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

u/s 271D of the Act without any assessment\nproceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be\nquashed. We order accordingly.\"\n7. Thus, it is a pre-requisite condition for initiation of the\npenalty u/sec.271D/271E of the Act that there must be an assessment\nproceeding or proceedings arising from assessment order or any other\nproceedings

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

In the result, three appeals i

u/s 271D of the Act without any assessment\nproceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be\nquashed. We order accordingly.\n7.\nThus, it is a pre-requisite condition for initiation of the\npenalty u/sec.271D/271E of the Act that there must be an assessment\nproceeding or proceedings arising from assessment order or any other\nproceedings

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

u/s 271D of the Act without any assessment\nproceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be\nquashed. We order accordingly.\"\n7. Thus, it is a pre-requisite condition for initiation of the\npenalty u/sec.271D/271E of the Act that there must be an\nassessment proceeding or proceedings arising from assessment\norder or any other proceedings

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

u/s. 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

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Konatham Kotireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Atupk6883E Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

271 B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in ignoring the impeccable documentary evidence filed a letter from the Principal Page 1 of 7 ITA 245 of 2023 Konatham Kotireddy Dealer viz. M/s. Anika Bajaj