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

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. 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

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

54 of the Act. The action of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) and ITAT in the quantum proceedings. Accordingly, AO proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied penalty. 3 I.T.A. NoS. 824 & 825/Hyd/2015 Usha Rani K & K. Bala Vishnu Raju 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

54 of the Act. The action of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) and ITAT in the quantum proceedings. Accordingly, AO proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied penalty. 3 I.T.A. NoS. 824 & 825/Hyd/2015 Usha Rani K & K. Bala Vishnu Raju 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

54,085/- respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I levy a penalty of Rs. 46,00,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions and made detailed submissions along with case law it relied upon. However, Ld.CIT(A) did not agree with the contentions. Ld.CIT

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

APSARA BHAVANASAI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Years: 2008-09 Apsara Bhavanasai, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Ahvpb 3872H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2019 O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 1, Hyderabad, Dated, 26/03/2018 For Ay 2008-09, Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 3 I.T.A. No. 970/Hyd/18 Apsara Bhavanasai, Hyd. (Appeals)-l, Guntur, dismissing

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

In the result, ITA.Nos.596 & 597/Hyd

271, a proper satisfaction must be recorded\nto initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D instead of a mere\nstatement given by the AO in his order dated 21.12.2019.\n9. a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 11,12,13 & 15\ntaken before him.\nb. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to\nhave appreciated that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

Penalty initiated separately proceedings Act, Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1961. u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated The are initiated separately appeal is separately. allowed 2 Vishnu ACWPN3597R ACIT, Assessment Assessee filed No scrutiny No appeal Swaroop Reddy Circle-6, completed u/s 143(3) appeal assessment Narapareddy Hyd on 03.03.2016 against order making addition u/s 143(3). towards LONG

TULIP GRANITES PRIVATE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 Tulip Granites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabct 7314E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasulu Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

54,66,490/-, after making various disallowance/additions to the income admitted, which includes the deduction/restriction of u/s.10B of the I.T. Act. The reasons for this deduction/restriction were discussed by the AO as under: 2 I.T.A. No. 600/Hyd/2015 Tulip Granites Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2.1 The assessee was in the business of processing of granite. The assessee company