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 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

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 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

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 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

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 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

section 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act.\n3:2.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter,\namend and/or substitute and/or modify in any manner\nwhatsoever modify all or any of the foregoing grounds of\nappeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”\nBriefly stated facts of the case are that, the\nappellant-company viz., SSNC Fin Tech Services

INVEST SMART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 331/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aftpg1095F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raja Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Did Not File Its Return Of Income Nor

68 of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) dated 30.06.2021, 29.11.2021 and 22.12.2021, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) dated 29.3.2022 asking the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(b) should not be levied. Since there was no response from

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, 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, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

274 of the Act, dated 13/07/2022, wherein she was called upon to explain as to why the penalty may not be imposed on her with respect to the additions sustained by the Tribunal. In reply, the assessee submitted that as she had assailed the order passed by the Tribunal 5 Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta vs. ITO before

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

274\n1,62,460\n44,49,860\n18\n19\n1,055\n5,986\n2,64,730\n29,73,330\n20\n803\n2,531\n1,59,390\n20,18,490\n21\n612\n4,065\n1,71,010\n18,01,510\n22 677\n3,415\n1,78,950\n18,74,450\n23\n830

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

274 read with\n271E of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n12.06,2007. It being a case of processing the return\nof income, there is no finding in the AO's order with\nregard to the applicability or otherwise of section\n269T of the IT Act to the assessee's case. It was\nwithin the purview

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

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

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

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

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

In the result, three appeals i

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9.\nThe learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

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).

68,940/- constituted under-reported income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice under Section 274

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

274 r.w.s. Section 270A is bad in law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, CallidusCloud India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of providing sales support, marketing and consulting services and software development to its group companies. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021–22 on 19.02.2022, declaring total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMMAM vs. BHARAT AUTO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, KHAMMAM

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

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

68,274/- 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y.2018-19 on 14/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs.16,77,160/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22/09/2019 and the same was served

P AMRUTH PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

SRINIVAS UPPU,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMRUT PRASAD PATNAM , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission