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

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

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

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

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

P AMRUTHA 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

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

274 read with section 270A of the Act, consequent to the above adjustment. 4.2 The Appellant submits that each ground of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 4.3 The Appellant desires to leave to amend, alter or to add, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD(ERSTWHILE EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Income-Tax, Circle – 17(1), Excellence Data Research Pvt. Hyderabad. Ltd.), Chennai Pan – Aabce 4933C (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,35,769/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and a total income of Rs. 14,19,335/- under the normal provisions of the Act. It had claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,95,70,554/- in the return of income. 2.1 The return

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

274 1,62,460 44,49,860 18 19 1,055 5,986 2,64,730 29,73,330 20

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

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage