BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 of the Act, thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 of the Act, thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 of the Act, thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

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.

271D of the Act is required to be quashed. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of Rajareddy Nalla (supra), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. Further, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of Revenue

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

section 269SS\nof the Act, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) rws 153A of\nthe Act dated 30.12.2019.\n6.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the AO has not recorded\nsatisfaction for involving penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and\nthus, the penalty order passed u/s 271D on 23.06.2021 is invalid\nand

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

section 269SS\nof the Act, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) rws 153A of\nthe Act dated 30.12.2019.\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the AO has not recorded\nsatisfaction for involving penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and\nthus, the penalty order passed u/s 271D on 23.06.2021 is invalid\nand

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

section 269SS\nof the Act, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) rws 153A of\nthe Act dated 30.12.2019.\n6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the AO has not recorded\nsatisfaction for involving penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and\nthus, the penalty order passed u/s 271D on 23.06.2021 is invalid\nand

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

sections": [ "Sec. 143(1)", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 154", "Sec. 250", "Sec. 11", "Sec. 12", "Sec. 10B", "Sec. 119(2)(b)", "Sec. 269SS", "Sec. 273B", "Sec. 68

ZAVERI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle – 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacz1286A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2024

68 of the Act, and had held that the receipt was in the form of loan or advances and therefore, deemed it appropriate to initiate the proceedings under Section 269SS/ST r.w.s. 271D

JAYARAM BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,150/- was paid and proof enclosed. 7(iii) In the light of contentions, raised by the assessee that the amount of cash received by him is not a loan or deposit, but sale consideration received on sale of immovable property and that provisions of section 269SS are not applicable, on receipt of such sale consideration in cash

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CHNNAMANENI INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Chnnamaneni Infra Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecc2707P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Y. Srikanth Reddy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2024 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

271D for violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Thereafter, passed assessment order on19.05.2023, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,93,07,867/-. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who granted relief in favour of the assessee. 5. The ld.DR has drawn our attention to page

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need