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

penalty under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n7.\nWe have carefully considered the rival submissions\nand perused the material available on record. We have also gone\nthrough page no. 8 of the reassessment order dated 05.12.2019\npassed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 147\nof the Act, the relevant portion of which

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 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

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

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

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

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

u/s 153A for assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 cannot be said to be based on assets seized, because from the assessment order, it is clear that search was on 11.01.2007 (i.e AY 2007-08), the cash seized during search was only to the tune of Rs.5,26,530/- and it is not emerging from the records that

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

u/s 153A for assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 cannot be said to be based on assets seized, because from the assessment order, it is clear that search was on 11.01.2007 (i.e AY 2007-08), the cash seized during search was only to the tune of Rs.5,26,530/- and it is not emerging from the records that

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

u/s 153A for assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 cannot be said to be based on assets seized, because from the assessment order, it is clear that search was on 11.01.2007 (i.e AY 2007-08), the cash seized during search was only to the tune of Rs.5,26,530/- and it is not emerging from the records that

ANNAPURNA BODDU,WEST GODAVARI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee to explain as to why the Long-Term Capital Gain should not be added to the total income of the assessee. He also confronted the statement recorded of his son Sri Boddu Srinivas, u/s

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAKINADA SEZ PRIVATE LIMITED,, R.R.DIST

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Kakinada Sez Pvt. Ward-2(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Shamshabad. Pan: Aacck 5670 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue By: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Ld. AO for Rs. 2,07,11,990/- invoking the provisions of section 271

PEESHONU MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Peeshona Marketing Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 7(1), Pan – Aaecp 4562F Hyderabad. (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 3, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 20/01/2017 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

57,283/-. The AO completed the assessment determining the income at Rs. 1,28,50,165/- by making the following additions: 1. Addition of Rs. 65,32,700/- towards peak credits. 2 I.T.A. No. 690/Hyd/2017 Peeshona Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2. Addition of Rs. 59,85,713/- towards unexplained expenditure. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before

JYOTHIRMOY YAMSANI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000

penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act arose out of the order dated 29.03.2006 and not out of the order dated 19.03.2014. This issue was not considered by the Hon'ble ITAT while deciding the appeal.” The Tribunal was therefore pleased to recall the order of the Tribunal for a limited purpose of rehearing the ground of appeal

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals