VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

40% of the total built up area of 10,35,565/- sq.ft. Accordingly, capital gains will arise in the hands of the assessee on sale of individual flats. A search and survey operation u/s. 132 of I.T.Act was conducted in the group case of Sri Arakula Vinod and others on 09.05.2018. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the records

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

SRI RAJA REDDY NALLA,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), 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

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

u/s. 271(1)(c) carried the same wordings "concealed particulars of income" as required by the provisions of Section 271(11(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The relevant notice Officer issued by the Assessing is reproduced as under: Page 7 of 17 ITA 402 of 2022 Shavva Sudheer Reddy Therefore, from the note issued by the Assessing Officer

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

40 of Annexure A/GP/-1 indicating an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was lent by the assessee to Sri V. Janardhan Reddy and Sri K. Rukma Reddy as loan. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said amount advanced and also whether the said transaction was reflected in the books of account, he stated that

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

40 of Annexure A/GP/-1 indicating an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was lent by the assessee to Sri V. Janardhan Reddy and Sri K. Rukma Reddy as loan. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said amount advanced and also whether the said transaction was reflected in the books of account, he stated that

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

40 of Annexure A/GP/-1 indicating an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was lent by the assessee to Sri V. Janardhan Reddy and Sri K. Rukma Reddy as loan. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said amount advanced and also whether the said transaction was reflected in the books of account, he stated that

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

40 of Annexure A/GP/-1 indicating an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was lent by the assessee to Sri V. Janardhan Reddy and Sri K. Rukma Reddy as loan. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said amount advanced and also whether the said transaction was reflected in the books of account, he stated that

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

40 of Annexure A/GP/-1 indicating an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was lent by the assessee to Sri V. Janardhan Reddy and Sri K. Rukma Reddy as loan. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said amount advanced and also whether the said transaction was reflected in the books of account, he stated that

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

40 of Annexure A/GP/-1 indicating an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was lent by the assessee to Sri V. Janardhan Reddy and Sri K. Rukma Reddy as loan. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the said amount advanced and also whether the said transaction was reflected in the books of account, he stated that

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

40), wherein, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.\n(246 ITR 568), it was held that in the absence of recording of\nsatisfaction in the assessment order, penalty proceedings under\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act are unsustainable in law. Accordingly,\nthe Ld. AR prayed before

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

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