MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

271F of the Act and levied penalty for non- furnishing of return of income. As regards the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the learned DR submitted that it is a clear case of non- compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and for this failure, the provisions of section

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

271F of the Act and levied penalty for non- furnishing of return of income. As regards the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the learned DR submitted that it is a clear case of non- compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and for this failure, the provisions of section

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

271(1)(b), the learned DR submitted that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and for this failure, the provisions of section 272A(1)(d)is attracted. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly levied penalty u/s 272A

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

COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section\n271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Act.\n12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing\nwith the approval of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”\n3.\nThe assessee company did not file it's return of\nincome u/sec.139 of the Income

SANKARLAL NAIK KARAMSI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumara N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1257/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sankarlal Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer Karamsi, Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Ancpk0584A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case.

section 69A are not attracted in the case of assessee, therefore, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the AO wherein, total income is determined at Rs.3,56,91,473/- u/s 69A of the IT Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time

PRAKASH LAL POTLURI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F. Despite the assessee's explanations, the Assessing Officer did not accept, as the assessee failed to prove that he had not received the sale consideration from said Anil Kumar and added the income from the sale of land to the return of income, totaling Rs.1,20,00,000/-. 3 Accordingly