SRI VENKATESHWAR REDDY PACCHICA,WARANGAL vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE1, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Raja Reddy Nalla Vs. Add. C. I. T. Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aaxpn3602Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sri Venkateshwar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Reddy :Pacchica, Warangal Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Ablpp0688B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy Cot(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In These Two Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

271 D of the Act were initiated for violating the provisions of Section 2699SS and penalty order u/s, 271D of the Ac was passed on 07.06.2022 by the Addl. CIT levying a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The appellant had agreed that he had received Rs. 40,00,000/-in cash as his share of advance towards sale

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The limitation period is not dependent on the pendency of appeal against the assessment or other order referred to in section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that an appeal is pending before Higher forum, new penalty

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The limitation period is not dependent on the pendency of appeal against the assessment or other order referred to in section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that an appeal is pending before Higher forum, new penalty

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The limitation period is not dependent on the pendency of appeal against the assessment or other order referred to in section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that an appeal is pending before Higher forum, new penalty

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, In so far as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. BAPU REDDY JALA , NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Page 13 of 15 ITA No.606 of 2022 Bapu Reddy Jala 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted

BHAGAWAN SRI BALASAIBABA CENTRAL TRUST,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Central Trust, Sri Nilayam Fort, Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh. Kurnool. Pan : Aaatb3818R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2024

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is 8 concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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

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 a penalty under Chapter XXI by the Income-tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner where such penalty has been imposed with the previous

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

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 a penalty under Chapter XXI by the Income-tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner where such penalty has been imposed with the previous

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

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 a penalty under Chapter XXI by the Income-tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner where such penalty has been imposed with the previous