VINOD AERUKALA ,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.

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

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 under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act /corresponding to section 271

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

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

reassessment of income chargeable\nto tax which has escaped assessment. Having considered the\nscope and object of the said provisions, the Full Bench held that\npenalty under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act /corresponding to\nsection 271

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

reassessment order, dated 11/12/2017. 5. The PCIT based on the aforesaid facts set aside the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 11/12/2017 to the file of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), i.e., Assessment Unit (AU), with a direction to give effect to his order passed under section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under section 148. 19. In the present case, as is noted above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the justifications given by the assessee regarding the items viz., club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under section 148. 19. In the present case, as is noted above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the justifications given by the assessee regarding the items viz., club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment

BHEL LCC SOCIETY LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

271/- was already made by the CPC while processing the return vide order dated 27/03/2019 and therefore, while passing the scrutiny assessment on 26/12/2019, the Assessing Officer has only repeated the said disallowance/addition as already made by the CPC. Hence, there is no difference in the total income assessed by the Assessing Officer and the income determined

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 proceedings under section 271

COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": [ "139", "147", "148", "142(1)", "144", "69A", "234A", "234B", "271A", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)", "271F", "292BB", "148A(b)", "144B(6)(ii)(a)", "147/144", "144B(6)(7)(a)" ], "issues": "Whether the notice issued u/s 148 was validly served on the assessee, and if not, whether the reassessment

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.630/Hyd/2025, wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.630/Hyd/2025, wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before

RAMESH BABU BEJJALA,KOTHAGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, 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)

reassessment order are vitiated in lew. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,17,000/- made under Section 63A of the Act by the Assessing Officer without any independent verification or reconciliation. The authorities failed to refute the explanations provided with cogent evidence rendering the addition unsustainable. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg Company Ltd Hyderabad Form

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg Company Ltd Hyderabad Form

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in our understanding, the Hon’ble High Court has not decided the issue with respect to the time frame provided for claiming the deduction as per section 80AC r.w. section 139(1) and Rule 18BBB and Page 31 of 39 ITA Nos 239 to 241 of 2022 Navayuga Engg Company Ltd Hyderabad Form

KANAKA CHALAM VOLETY,CALIFORNIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been carried out in the case of the assessee for the said assessment year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, on 24.03.2023 requesting the assessee to furnish his return of income within thirty days. However

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 proceedings under Section 271

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

reassessment to form the belief that the income had\nescaped assessment and therefore, reopening of assessment under\nsection 147/148 is not valid.\"\nAs the assessee company by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of\nappeal has sought our indulgence for adjudicating certain legal issues\nwhich would not require looking any further beyond the facts available\non record, therefore, we have