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

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

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

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

NAGAIAH KEKKIRENI,SURYAPET vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

penalty is leviable. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the order u/s 271(1)(c) is not passed within time. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2009-10 on 02/01/2014, declaring an income

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

90,220/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated for failure to furnish the Audit 3 Report in Form No.3CD before the specified date as required u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the assessee had failed to comply with the statutory provisions prescribed in sec. 44AB of the I.T. Act. The penalty proceedings

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)

90,000 u/s 69A.The very precondition of Section 69A is that the money, bullion, etc., is "not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him. Fact: The appellant is a retired government employee (Mandal Educational Officer) with no business income. He is not mandated to maintain any books of account under the Income

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010- 11 read as under : 17. The learned TPO has grossly erred in not appreciating that the outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct are attracted for concealment of income.\nAddition: Rs.1,83,84,000/-\n19. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition\nby considering the fact that some of the sales are not related to\nthe A.Y under consideration, but pertains to the A.Y 2018-19 and\nfor remaining sales

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct are attracted for concealment of income.\nAddition: Rs.1,83,84,000/-\n19. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition\nby considering the fact that some of the sales are not related to\nthe A.Y under consideration, but pertains to the A.Y 2018-19 and\nfor remaining sales

NADELLA MUNIKANNAIAH ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

u/s. 271(1)(C) of the I.T.Act, 1961 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in not considering the fact that the year of taxability of capital gain in the case of Joint Development Agreement is controversial issue 2 ITA 444/Hyd/2019 and this was a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of such capital gain by appellant

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

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, 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