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

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

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. As per the provisions of sec.275(1)(c) of the Act, no order imposing penalty under this Chapter-XXI shall be passed in any other case after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings

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

iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court.” 18. The above-said contention of ld.AR was rebutted by the ld.DR and it was submitted that section 275 only provides the limitation for passing the penalty order and not for initiation of penalty proceedings

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

iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court.” 18. The above-said contention of ld.AR was rebutted by the ld.DR and it was submitted that section 275 only provides the limitation for passing the penalty order and not for initiation of penalty proceedings

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) and the penalty notices subsequently issued did not specify which limb the penalty proceedings had been initiated. The appellant in his support quoted a few case laws regarding the penalty notices and recording of satisfaction in assessment order. It is observed from the assessment order that the AO has mentioned penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment

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

iii) For the above said purposes, ld.AR has drawn our attention to page 27 of the paper book wherein the notice issued u/s 274 was placed. The above said notice reads as under : - Left intentionally - 7 iv) The addition was made primarily based on the statement of Mr. Vijay Kumar, Managing Director of M/s. K.V.K Energy and Infrastructure

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

iii) For the above said purposes, ld.AR has drawn our attention to page 27 of the paper book wherein the notice issued u/s 274 was placed. The above said notice reads as under : - Left intentionally - 7 iv) The addition was made primarily based on the statement of Mr. Vijay Kumar, Managing Director of M/s. K.V.K Energy and Infrastructure

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.

iii) Execution of warrant u/s 132 against the person searched. :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 15.2 It was stated that the above three basic requirements are absent in a proceeding in the case of “other person”. The proceeding u/s 153C is an incidental proceeding against the third person who is not subject to search

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.

iii) Execution of warrant u/s 132 against the person searched. :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 15.2 It was stated that the above three basic requirements are absent in a proceeding in the case of “other person”. The proceeding u/s 153C is an incidental proceeding against the third person who is not subject to search

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.

iii) Execution of warrant u/s 132 against the person searched. :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 15.2 It was stated that the above three basic requirements are absent in a proceeding in the case of “other person”. The proceeding u/s 153C is an incidental proceeding against the third person who is not subject to search

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.

iii) Execution of warrant u/s 132 against the person searched. :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 15.2 It was stated that the above three basic requirements are absent in a proceeding in the case of “other person”. The proceeding u/s 153C is an incidental proceeding against the third person who is not subject to search

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.

iii) Execution of warrant u/s 132 against the person searched. :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 15.2 It was stated that the above three basic requirements are absent in a proceeding in the case of “other person”. The proceeding u/s 153C is an incidental proceeding against the third person who is not subject to search

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.

iii) Execution of warrant u/s 132 against the person searched. :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 15.2 It was stated that the above three basic requirements are absent in a proceeding in the case of “other person”. The proceeding u/s 153C is an incidental proceeding against the third person who is not subject to search

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI vs. PALLAM REDDY SREELAKSHMI, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 271AAB of the Act the Ld. A.O has to first pass through the hurdle of Section 274 of Shri Ashok Bhatia ITA No. 869/Ind/2018 the Act. For better understanding we reproduce the provisions of Section 271AAB and 274 of the Act which reads as follows:- Section 271AAB of the Act. '271AAB. Penalty where search has been initiated.--(1

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI vs. PALAKALA GUNASEKHAR, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 271AAB of the Act the Ld. A.O has to first pass through the hurdle of Section 274 of Shri Ashok Bhatia ITA No. 869/Ind/2018 the Act. For better understanding we reproduce the provisions of Section 271AAB and 274 of the Act which reads as follows:- Section 271AAB of the Act. '271AAB. Penalty where search has been initiated.--(1

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

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