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

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

273B of the Act, and hence, penalty u/s 271D cannot be levied. In this regard, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, in appellant Society, members cases in the case of Shri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori and others Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad in ITA. Nos.591/Hyd/2022 and others

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 271E

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) is not sustainable on this ground alone. Further, as pointed by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the assessment Page 5 of 6 ITA No 474 of 2020 Trinity Infraventures Ltd New Delhi was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and therefore, it cannot

B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2008-09

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). • (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. • Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— • (a) “undisclosed income” means— • (i) any income

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

273B of the Act for accepting cash transactions, as the real estate business inherently involves immediate cash dealings due to market practices and lack of access to institutional financing, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271D ought to have been levied. 12. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- imposed under Section 271D

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

273B of the Act for accepting cash transactions, as the real estate business inherently involves immediate cash dealings due to market practices and lack of access to institutional financing, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271D ought to have been levied. 12. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- imposed under Section 271D

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

273B of the Act for accepting cash transactions, as the real estate business inherently involves immediate cash dealings due to market practices and lack of access to institutional financing, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271D ought to have been levied. 12. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- imposed under Section 271D

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

273B of the Act for accepting cash transactions, as the real estate business inherently involves immediate cash dealings due to market practices and lack of access to institutional financing, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271D ought to have been levied. 12. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- imposed under Section 271D

KALAWATHI BAGAYATH,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 273B for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) because there was a sufficient cause for not appearing before the AO. 11. The ld. DR, on the other

KALAWATHI BAGAYATH,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 273B for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) because there was a sufficient cause for not appearing before the AO. 11. The ld. DR, on the other

BHOOM REDDY KOMATIREDDY,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271 D levied vide the impugned order.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld. AR has drawn our attention to the written submissions filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) who has not considered the same while passing the order. The relevant portion of written

NIMMATOORI YASHODA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

271, a proper satisfaction must be recorded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D instead of a mere statement given by the AO in his order dated 21.12.2019. 9. a . The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 11,12,13 & 15 taken before him. b. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

NIMMATOORI SULOCHANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

271, a proper satisfaction must be recorded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D instead of a mere statement given by the AO in his order dated 21.12.2019. 9. a . The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 11,12,13 & 15 taken before him. b. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ishoo Narang Vs. Acit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

section 273B of the Act would apply to the appellant's case for the year under consideration. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing officer erred in not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, by imposing penalty

NIMMATOORI RAMESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

271, a proper satisfaction must be recorded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D instead of a mere statement given by the AO in his order dated 21.12.2019. 9. a . The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 11,12,13 & 15 taken before him. b. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJABABU L/R BY ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

271, a proper satisfaction must be recorded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D instead of a mere statement given by the AO in his order dated 21.12.2019. 9. a . The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 11,12,13 & 15 taken before him. b. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

DAMODAR RAO BIBINAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Damodar Rao Bibinagar, Vs. The Additional 1-8-74/6, Commissioner Of Income Chikkadapally, Tax, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500020. Pan : Afjpb5620F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/12/2023

271 D of the Act dealing with penalty for violation of provisions of section 269SS as automatic, failing to appreciate that provisions of section 273B of the Act confers discretion on the authorities to not to levy in deserving cases, like the present case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee had sold property situated at H.No

A Z DEVELOPERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22/12/2021, 17/01/2022 and 17/02/2022 to the assessee, to which the assessee could not respond. Consequently, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of ITA No.899/Hyd/2024 2 the Act and levied a penalty of Rs.30,000/- by order dated 21.09.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading