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

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

43,37,075/- • Aggrieved to the penalty order, assessee went to appeal before CIT(A). The Honourable CIT(A) has passed order by giving relief for penalty order stating that as original proceedings have been set aside, the penalty proceedings also as set aside. • Aggrieved to the above, assessee went to appeal before Honourable ITAT with ITA No. ITA 192/H/2023

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.

43,857/-respectively for the said two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. In view of such facts, we find no error in the Tribunal holding that the penalty could not have been imposed. There was no question of the Assessee not declaring the income of the particulars of the income so as to invite penalty under Section

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.

43,857/-respectively for the said two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. In view of such facts, we find no error in the Tribunal holding that the penalty could not have been imposed. There was no question of the Assessee not declaring the income of the particulars of the income so as to invite penalty under Section

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.

43,857/-respectively for the said two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. In view of such facts, we find no error in the Tribunal holding that the penalty could not have been imposed. There was no question of the Assessee not declaring the income of the particulars of the income so as to invite penalty under Section

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.

43,857/-respectively for the said two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. In view of such facts, we find no error in the Tribunal holding that the penalty could not have been imposed. There was no question of the Assessee not declaring the income of the particulars of the income so as to invite penalty under Section

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.

43,857/-respectively for the said two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. In view of such facts, we find no error in the Tribunal holding that the penalty could not have been imposed. There was no question of the Assessee not declaring the income of the particulars of the income so as to invite penalty under Section

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.

43,857/-respectively for the said two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. In view of such facts, we find no error in the Tribunal holding that the penalty could not have been imposed. There was no question of the Assessee not declaring the income of the particulars of the income so as to invite penalty under Section

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

43,50,000/-. The assessee accepted the entire amount of Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s 271D. Despite being given sufficient opportunity, there was no response from the assessee to justify receipt of cash. Keeping in view the totality of the facts

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

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. 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

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

S. VENKATESWARA REDDY,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blevenkateswara Reddy Singani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Chetlamallapuram Village, Kurnool. Kallur Mandal, Kurnool Dist. Pan No. Aqxps 9237 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show cause notice in the printed

PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY YELLAREDDYGARI,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blepradeep Kumar Reddy Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Yellareddygari, No. 2-10, Adoni. Ramapuram Village, Thungabhadra Post, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. Pan No. Afbpy 3827 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show cause notice in the printed