MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2016-17 and 2017-18 and has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2016-17. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2016-17 and 2017-18 and has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2016-17. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT TXNT)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2016-17 and 2017-18 and has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2016-17. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2017-18 and has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2017-18. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the penalty

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

271 1,350\n8,132\n12,46,470\n16\n22,141 6,186 1,743\n3,319\n25,91,450\

RAJESWARA RAO ANNE,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271 read with\nsection 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the\nspevific default committed by the appellant rendering the\nappellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the\nLd. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the penalty order\nby observing that

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) in the assessment order itself, for both "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" and "concealment of income." Crucially, these penalty proceedings were kept pending and not concluded, awaiting the outcome of the appeal. Argument: This action reveals a fundamental flaw in the AO's approach. By initiating penalty during the assessment, the AO demonstrated a pre- concluded guilty

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

MEENA JEWELLERS EXTENSION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2) , HYDERABD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2024 To 330/Hyd/2024 & Ita 385/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Meena Jewellers Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) / Extension Private Limited Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaicm3013G]

Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted

SRINIVAS CHOWDARY VALLABHANENI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s\n271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. (i) Ld CIT(A) also erred in\nlaw in not quashing the penalty levied on the basis of\nstereotyped Notice issued under section 271 read with\nsection 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the\nspecific default committed by the appellant rendering the\nappellant liable to penalty under Income

VIJAY KUMAR REDDY CHALLA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vijay Kumar Reddy Vs. Asst. C. I. T. Challa, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(4) Pan:Abvpc7794M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee is unjust, arbitrary, and deserves to be quashed. 3. That action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in not providing the proper opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal on the basis that no Page 1 of 5 ITA 157 of 2023 Vijay Kumar Reddy Challa

KERELE BALWANTH REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

69A of the Act and brought to tax U/s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and such appeal has been filed on 18/12/2022 with a delay of 07 months. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before

KERELE BALWANTH REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

69A of the Act and brought to tax U/s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and such appeal has been filed on 18/12/2022 with a delay of 07 months. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before

NARSINGA RAO ALETI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

Bench: Us:

penalty of Rs. 10,50,600/- as there are no proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are pending in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 6. The learned Commissioner posted the case fixing the date

PRATHIBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1424/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 Prathiba Educational The Income Tax Officer, Society, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pin – 500 038 Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaatp4036B. Pin – 500 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By : Ca Sanket Milind Joshi राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

69A. Ground No.4 is raised against addition on levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Ground No.5 is raised against initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAC(1). 6.2. These grounds are taken up for discussion and adjudication in the subsequent paragraphs of this order. Further, as explained in the preceding paras, during the course

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR vs. DADIVELA GOVIND GOUD, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

69A is restricted to Rs. 37,45,219/- instead of Rs. 13,91,451/- as declared by the appellant in P & L A/c. Further, the AO is directed to give credit of TCS/TDS of Rs.4,08,648/-(Rs.405711 + Rs.2937) while giving the effect to the order and determining tax liability. Above direction is being issued u/s

GOVIND GOUD DADIVELA,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

69A is restricted to Rs. 37,45,219/- instead of Rs. 13,91,451/- as declared by the appellant in P & L A/c. Further, the AO is directed to give credit of TCS/TDS of Rs.4,08,648/-(Rs.405711 + Rs.2937) while giving the effect to the order and determining tax liability. Above direction is being issued u/s