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

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

73,04,350/- + Rs. 7,46,35,604/-) in cash from Incredible India Projects Private Ltd. Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. further noted in the assessment order that this information will be forwarded to the JCIT, Central Range – 2, Hyderabad, for taking necessary action in connection with the above sale of land for violating the provisions of Section 269SS

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

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

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

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

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

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

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

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

271 of the 1961 Act in favour of the assessee. However, what needs to be noted is that the stated penalty proceedings were the outcome of the assessment order in question concerning assessment year 1998-1999. Indeed, at the time of assessment, the appellant/assessee had failed to produce any explanation or evidence in support of the entries regarding purchases made

CHANDU VIJAYALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.805/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt.Chandu Vijayalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aflpc2369E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

section 271(1)(c), levied minimum penalty of Rs.7,81,933/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the act for concealing particulars of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee challenged the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271

A.V.K. VISWANADHA RAJU,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

section 271(1)(c) and hence the penalty order is upheld.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 Hyderabad dated 13.11.2015 confirming the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Shanta Sriram Infra & Vs. Dcit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs 4180 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 Order Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.:

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)© but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s 271

PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY YELLAREDDYGARI,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blepradeep Kumar Reddy Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Yellareddygari, No. 2-10, Adoni. Ramapuram Village, Thungabhadra Post, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. Pan No. Afbpy 3827 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') determining total (Pradeep Kumar Reddy Yellareddygari) income of Rs. 24,73,680/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271

S. VENKATESWARA REDDY,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blevenkateswara Reddy Singani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Chetlamallapuram Village, Kurnool. Kallur Mandal, Kurnool Dist. Pan No. Aqxps 9237 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

DCIT,CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. DR. REDDY'S LABOURATORIES LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 271. The case of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyd. the assessee should have been examined from the point of view whether the assessee withheld any particulars or concealed any income with any malafide intention. If there is no such finding, the levy of penalty is not warranted and needs to be quashed. 5.2 While continuing the submissions