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. 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

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

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

55,990 4,57,07,972 1,57,69,250 Net Demand raised vide 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 05.12.2019 6,14,77,222 Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. DY. COMMISSIONER OF SEAL CIRCL (VENUDHAR GODESI, I.R.S) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad. 8. On perusal of the above, we find 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.

penalty order as above, there was a specific material vide page No. 42 of Annexure A/GP/01, which has been referred and used against the assessee and, therefore the provisions of section 271(1)(c) explanation 5A are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as there was a specific material found in the course of search in respect

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.

penalty order as above, there was a specific material vide page No. 42 of Annexure A/GP/01, which has been referred and used against the assessee and, therefore the provisions of section 271(1)(c) explanation 5A are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as there was a specific material found in the course of search in respect

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.

penalty order as above, there was a specific material vide page No. 42 of Annexure A/GP/01, which has been referred and used against the assessee and, therefore the provisions of section 271(1)(c) explanation 5A are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as there was a specific material found in the course of search in respect

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.

penalty order as above, there was a specific material vide page No. 42 of Annexure A/GP/01, which has been referred and used against the assessee and, therefore the provisions of section 271(1)(c) explanation 5A are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as there was a specific material found in the course of search in respect

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.

penalty order as above, there was a specific material vide page No. 42 of Annexure A/GP/01, which has been referred and used against the assessee and, therefore the provisions of section 271(1)(c) explanation 5A are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as there was a specific material found in the course of search in respect

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.

penalty order as above, there was a specific material vide page No. 42 of Annexure A/GP/01, which has been referred and used against the assessee and, therefore the provisions of section 271(1)(c) explanation 5A are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as there was a specific material found in the course of search in respect

KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

55,20,600/- over and above the returned income which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. We find the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and applying the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act levied penalty

MOHA NARENDRA GANDHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

55(2) of the Act and the explanation (b)(ii) thereunder, where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in sub-section (1) of section 49 and the capital asset became the property of the previous owner before 1st of April, 2001 means the cost of the asset to previous owner

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

271(1)(c) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 1279 & 1280/Hyd/2017 Kalawathi Bagayath., Hyderabad. 2. In this appeal the assessee has raised 11 (1 to 11) grounds of appeal and raised additional grounds off appeal from 12 to 17, the sum and substance of which are against the action

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

271(1)(c) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 1279 & 1280/Hyd/2017 Kalawathi Bagayath., Hyderabad. 2. In this appeal the assessee has raised 11 (1 to 11) grounds of appeal and raised additional grounds off appeal from 12 to 17, the sum and substance of which are against the action