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

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

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered

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.

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated

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.

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated

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

63,856/- for A.Y. 2016-17 in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) were confirmed, respectively, on the following grounds : “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Hyderabad [ for short-Hon.CIT] erred-in confirming penalty order of learned Assessing Officer [ for short ¬the learned AO] which penalty , of Rs.35

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

63,856/- for A.Y. 2016-17 in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) were confirmed, respectively, on the following grounds : “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Hyderabad [ for short-Hon.CIT] erred-in confirming penalty order of learned Assessing Officer [ for short ¬the learned AO] which penalty , of Rs.35

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. 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. 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 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

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 222 (7) TMI 1370-Delhi. 21. Penalty proceedings entail

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 222 (7) TMI 1370-Delhi. 21. Penalty proceedings entail

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CETRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 222 (7) TMI 1370-Delhi. 21. Penalty proceedings entail

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered