VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Loss assessed - Rs. 4,72,070/- Tax thereon - Nil Calculation of tax on the income u/s. 115JB: Book Profit u/s. 115JB - Rs. 2,34,76,570 Tax thereon - Rs. 41,40,614 (+) Surcharge - Rs. 3,10,546 (+) EC & SHEC - Rs. 1,33,535 Tax - Rs. 45,84,695 (+) Interest u/s. 234A - Rs. 3,66,776 (+) Interest u/s. 234B

NITEN KUMAR GOEL,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

set off of false brought forward losses and depreciation and had thereby furnished inaccurate particulars. AO found it to be a fit case for imposition of penalty and levied a minimum penalty of Rs. 2,97,476/- u/s. 271

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

losses of Rs. 11,34,939/-. 11.1 When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by both the authorities. 11.2 Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and a notice was issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with regard to bogus claim

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

losses of Rs. 11,34,939/-. 11.1 When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by both the authorities. 11.2 Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and a notice was issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with regard to bogus claim

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

u/s. 2(45) of the Act, it would so applicable even in respect of negative income i.e. loss. 8.10 A detailed analysis of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) is finding place in the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DDIT (lnternational Taxation) Vs. Asia Pacific Performance SICAV [2015] 55 Taxmann.com 333 (Mum. Trib

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 31/05/2011 and this order was passed after the DRP order, which was passed on 30/09/2010. The assessee preferred appeal before ITAT and final order was passed on 08/08/2013. In the ITAT order, there were 13 issues and the same were adjudicated as below: S.No. Addition made by the AO DRP ITAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

loss as well as a chance of gain. " [Emphasis supplied] 14 The department submits that the revenue-sharing model of Joint Development being followed by the assessee is a composite arrangement wherein land is contributed by one party and the development being carried out by the other party with a clear understanding on sharing of the proceeds from sale

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

setting up transmission lines and sub-stations. The company has two manufacturing facilities which are located near Hyderabad with an annual installed capacity of 2,40,000 MTPA. Company is certified with quality management (ISO 9001:2008), Environmental Management (ISO 14001:2004) and occupational Health and Safety (OHSAS 18001:2007) 2.2 International Transactions: As per 3CEB report/TP Document submitted

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

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

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

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

loss incurred in form of advances written off should be allowed as business expenditure. 4.11 Ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has written off the amount in compliance with the accounting standard. 5. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) r.w.s 274, 271AA & 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The appellant may add, alter

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

loss incurred in form of advances written off should be allowed as business expenditure. 4.11 Ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has written off the amount in compliance with the accounting standard. 5. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) r.w.s 274, 271AA & 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The appellant may add, alter

SYNFOSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2011-12 Synfosys Business Vs. Income Tax Officer, Solutions Ltd., Ward-3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcs 3590 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company engaged in software services, filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 30/09/2011 claiming exemption U/s. 10A of the Act. Subsequently, order was passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 accepting the return filed

PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

U/s 271(1). 5. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)( c) of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays that the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings be quashed. The above grounds of anneal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee bank is dismissed as unadmitted

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2011-12 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Bank, Income Tax, Kadapa. Range - 2 Tirupati. Pan – Aamfa 8921A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seshachalam Revenue By : Shri Pathlevath Peerya Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2018 Order Per D. Manmohan: This Is An Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee, A Cooperative Society. Penalty Levied By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act @ 150% Of The Amount Sought To Be Evaded By Reason Of Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars, Was Confirmed By The Cit(A) & Thus The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Along With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 178 Days. In The Affidavit Filed Along With Form- 36, The Chairman & Chief Managing Director Of The Assessee Bank Deposed As Under: “Our Appeal Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, For The A.Y 2011-12 Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Kurnool On 20.08.2014 & Was Duly Disposed Off & A Certified Copy Of The Appellate Order Was Also Served On Us. During The Process The Said Order Being Examined By Various

loss”. This affidavit appears to have been signed on 12.08.2016. 2. Thereafter another affidavit was filed furnishing more reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, wherein it was stated that the General Manager of assessee bank Shri Gopi Krishna was transferred on 06.05.2016 and Chief Manager retired on 31.05.2016 and the central audit of the Head office was also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on the above addition on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts. Paragraph 33 of the assessment order is reproduced hereinbelow for the completeness of the record. “33.0 Accordingly an amount of Rs 3,09,94,700/- is brought to tax as unexplained cash credits of assessee firm

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on the above addition on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts. Paragraph 33 of the assessment order is reproduced hereinbelow for the completeness of the record. “33.0 Accordingly an amount of Rs 3,09,94,700/- is brought to tax as unexplained cash credits of assessee firm