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

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

5. The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned.” 10.1.2 In view of the above, it is clear that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 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

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act which got barred by limitation under section 275(1) of the Act.” 3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other appeal also i.e., ITA 231/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 except the amounts involved. 4. Before us, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in both the appeals

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act which got barred by limitation under section 275(1) of the Act.” 3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other appeal also i.e., ITA 231/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 except the amounts involved. 4. Before us, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in both the appeals

MOOLA PADMAJA,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.

penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted inaccurate particulars of income since the assessee section 148 of the I.T.Act and such income has been accepted. 5

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.

penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted inaccurate particulars of income since the assessee section 148 of the I.T.Act and such income has been accepted. 5

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.635/Hyd/2022 & Sa No.49/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sarat Gopal Boppana Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Afcpb8083K Hyderabad (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: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 5A provided therein. The learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts has simply sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1

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

section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 5A come into play. Accordingly, I deem this a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) to the extent of undisclosed investments found during search in the form of seized material mentioned above. The seized material indicate that the assessee invested Rs.6 lakhs towards purchase of property at Kondapur, Hyderabad

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

u/s. 148, the assessee would not have filed the return of income, especially considering the past conduct of the assessee and therefore, it is a clear case of concealment of income as per Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, penalty in our opinion was rightly levied by the AO and sustained by the ld.CIT

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

u/s. 148, the assessee would not have filed the return of income, especially considering the past conduct of the assessee and therefore, it is a clear case of concealment of income as per Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, penalty in our opinion was rightly levied by the AO and sustained by the ld.CIT

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through page no. 8 of the reassessment order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the relevant portion of which

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel

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.

section 271(1)(c) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A is invalid, without jurisdiction, bad in law and must be deleted. He relied on the following case law: 1. Heval Navinbhai Patel