DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

unexplained credits which tantamount to furnishing in accurate particulars/ concealment of particulars of income by the assessee ? 3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts that the assessee did not come forward for the disclosure voluntarily. It was possible only when findings of search conducted by DIT(Inv), Kolkata in the case of Mr. Praveen Agarwal

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

unexplained credits which tantamount to furnishing in accurate particulars/ concealment of particulars of income by the assessee ? 3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts that the assessee did not come forward for the disclosure voluntarily. It was possible only when findings of search conducted by DIT(Inv), Kolkata in the case of Mr. Praveen Agarwal

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 2.2 Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and since

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

unexplained investment and therefore ought not to have sustained the addition. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the above mentioned amount was also taken into consideration while making declaration of income for assessment purpose for various asst. years and therefore ought to have directed for deletion

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

unexplained investment and therefore ought not to have sustained the addition. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the above mentioned amount was also taken into consideration while making declaration of income for assessment purpose for various asst. years and therefore ought to have directed for deletion

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

unexplained investment and therefore ought not to have sustained the addition. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the above mentioned amount was also taken into consideration while making declaration of income for assessment purpose for various asst. years and therefore ought to have directed for deletion

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

unexplained investment and therefore ought not to have sustained the addition. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the above mentioned amount was also taken into consideration while making declaration of income for assessment purpose for various asst. years and therefore ought to have directed for deletion

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

unexplained investment and therefore ought not to have sustained the addition. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the above mentioned amount was also taken into consideration while making declaration of income for assessment purpose for various asst. years and therefore ought to have directed for deletion

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

unexplained investment and therefore ought not to have sustained the addition. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the above mentioned amount was also taken into consideration while making declaration of income for assessment purpose for various asst. years and therefore ought to have directed for deletion

ANNAPURNA BODDU,WEST GODAVARI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

investment in shares of M/s RISA International Ltd by the assessee is not bonafide. We find the assessee did not challenge the addition before the learned CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer thereafter levied penalty of Rs.24,00,000 u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act which has been upheld by the learned CIT (A). We have already reproduced

B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2008-09

unexplained cash found at the time of search of Rs. 5 lakhs. He submitted that these may be grounds for making and confirming the additions but they cannot be considered for levy of the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. He submitted that assessee’s explanation has not been found to be false and therefore the penalty is not sustainable

GEETHIKA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1239 & 1240/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2014-15)

investment for levy of penalty. 8. The ld. AO ought to have also noted that while oil is purchased Tanker wise and sales are made Tanker wise and the above procedure is followed regularly in business transactions. 9. The ld. AO ought to have also noted that while purchases were held as unexplained expenditure U/s 69C of the Act, erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI vs. POLU VENKATASUBBAIAH, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not appear and also did 4

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were

GANGULA PRABHAKAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.1809/Hyd/2017: 6. The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had levied penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 271

GANGULA PRABHAKAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.1809/Hyd/2017: 6. The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had levied penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 271

GEETHIKA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1239 & 1240/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Geethika Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(4) Pan:Aamfg5506F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. He has referred to the affidavit of the Ex Managing Partner of the assessee firm dated 10th June and 20th June, 2019 respectively and submitted that the assessee partnership came into existence on 6/11/2013 with 2 partners. The assessee carried on business of purchase and sale of vegetable

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 4. The learned CIT (A) while dealing with the issue had deleted the addition of 20% of the total amount confirmed by the Assessing Officer by holding as under: “5. I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen