MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

CENTENARY BAPTIST CHURCH,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- EXEMPTIONS 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

reassessment / penalty / other proceedings not uploaded. 5. (EF) petition and / or affidavit for condoning the delay in filing appeal is not uploaded

CENTENARY BAPTIST CHURCH,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

reassessment / penalty / other proceedings not uploaded. 5. (EF) petition and / or affidavit for condoning the delay in filing appeal is not uploaded

VARAHALA SOBHA RANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 142(1) dated 12.07.2023 and 08.11.2023. On account of such non-compliance, the Ld. AO initiated penalty

VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

reassessment made under section 153A shall be subject to interest penalty and prosecution, if applicable. In the assessment or reassessment

SUKESINI KUMILI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

reassessment scheme notification and without adhering to the mandatory faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment orders were also quashed. Penalty orders

HARI KRISHNA LEELA PRASAD PALADUGU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under Section 271D, which is evident from the fact that, in the present case, there was no regular assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) or reassessment

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

penalty of Rs.3,74,31,109/-\nlevied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR\ninvited our attention to page no. 8 of the reassessment

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

reassessment of income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. Having considered the scope and object of the said provisions, the Full Bench held that penalty

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

reassessment, as to whether\nan item represents an asset or an expenditure or whether it\nexceeds the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs. The said exercise is\nrequired to be carried out prior to or at the time of recording\nthe satisfaction and the reasons and while obtaining the\nrequisite approvals of higher authorities. Obviously, this has\nnot been done

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

reassessed or recomputed in the preceding year. In the present case, since the assessee has not furnished return of income under Section 139, and for the first time, she has furnished return of income under Section 148, the A.O. has rightly levied penalty

RAYUDU LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.725/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Rayudu Laboratories The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Pin – 500 036. Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aabcr8021N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar

penalty levied u/s 270A was imposed without proving deliberate under-reporting or misreporting of income. The addition was made solely due to interpretational differences, not due to concealment or willful default. 8. The appellant seeks to set aside the previous orders and requests a reassessment

A Z DEVELOPERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“the Act”). During the course of the proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22/12/2021, 17/01/2022 and 17/02/2022 to the assessee, to which the assessee could not respond. Consequently, the Ld. AO initiated penalty

CHANDINI DUVVURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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)

reassessment ex-parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and treated (i) the time deposits of Rs. 55,98,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE, and (ii) the interest income of Rs. 17,29,953/- as income from other sources, thereby determining the total income at Rs. 73,27,953/-. The A.O. also initiated separate

JSW ENERGY (UTKAL) LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IND BARATH ENERGY UTKAL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIPR) period. 2. The respondent craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” 9. The Ld. AR submitted that, when the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was initiated by the Ld. AO, the assessee was under CIRP before NCLT. The CIRP was commenced on 29.08.2018, while the proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. JSW ENERGY (UTKAL) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIPR) period. 2. The respondent craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” 9. The Ld. AR submitted that, when the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was initiated by the Ld. AO, the assessee was under CIRP before NCLT. The CIRP was commenced on 29.08.2018, while the proceedings

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

penalty. The learned\nCounsel in support of his submission cited a Full Bench decision of\nAllahabad High Court in CIT v. Gopal Krishna Singhania (1973) 89\nITR 27.\n22. In the above decision, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court\nwas dealing with proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax\nAct, 1922 which corresponds to sections

SYED KHADER HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

penalty order passed\nu/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 subject to cost of Rs.2500/- for\neach appeal to be paid to the Prime Ministers' National Relief\nFund within a period of one month from the date of this order.\n\n7. The learned AR of the assessee has pleaded that the\nAssessing Officer has made the addition on account

FREYR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) ……… (2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— Page 4 of 7 (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum