OMCON REIGN FOREST PROJECTS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

14,700 2.2. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) but the return was filed subsequent to the date of issue of letter and the notice u/s 148. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed that though the assessee had taxable income, it did not file the returns

VENKATA RAMA SATYANARAYANA VARMA VEGESNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

3, the assessee submitted that the provisons of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act speaks about Deemed Dividend. That means the dividend which is not actually paid by the company or received by the Director, but is assumed to be dividend for the purpose of taxation under Income Tax Act. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI M. SOMABRAHMAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 271AAB of the Act, the penalty is leviable only on undisclosed income. In the instant case, the A.O. has failed to establish the undisclosed income, hence, we hold that there is no case for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act, accordingly, we cancel the penalty and set aside the order of the lower authorities. ITA 132/Vizag/2017

MOTHUKURI SOMABRAHMAM,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 271AAB of the Act, the penalty is leviable only on undisclosed income. In the instant case, the A.O. has failed to establish the undisclosed income, hence, we hold that there is no case for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act, accordingly, we cancel the penalty and set aside the order of the lower authorities. ITA 132/Vizag/2017

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

u/s 153C\nd.\nwhere return was filed for the\nfirst time in response to notice\nus. 148 of the IT Act. (refer\n270A (3)(b))\nNot Applicable since assessee's case is\nnot a case of notice issued u/s148\n11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories\nand hence even on merits penalty

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

u/s 234E of the Act, before insertion of sub-clause (c) into section 200A of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below. “As per section 200(3) read with rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 a tax deductor is required to file quarterly statement of such taxes

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

u/s 234E of the Act, before insertion of sub-clause (c) into section 200A of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below. “As per section 200(3) read with rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 a tax deductor is required to file quarterly statement of such taxes

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, for the year under consideration, the assessee filed it return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.1,57,90,420/-. The return filed

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Us:

3) dated 28.12.2019 is sustainable in the eyes of law? 13. As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O., while framing the assessment, had not recorded his satisfaction regarding the initiation of the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal, i.e., the sustainability of the penalty imposed under

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

u/s 153C d. where return was filed for the Not Applicable since assessee's case is first time in response to notice not a case of notice issued u/s148 us. 148 of the IT Act. (refer 270A (3)(b)) 11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories and hence even on merits penalty

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

u/s 153C d. where return was filed for the Not Applicable since assessee's case is first time in response to notice not a case of notice issued u/s148 us. 148 of the IT Act. (refer 270A (3)(b)) 11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories and hence even on merits penalty

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

14,79,100]. Accordingly, the Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings and issued a show cause notice dated 21/02/2022 wherein the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response, the assessee furnished its reply however

D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, dated 30/03/2014 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1)(c) was passed on 26/09/2014. 5. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the\nPrincipal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the\ncase might justify, which could include an order enhancing or modifying\nthe assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh\nassessment. Directing fresh assessment would, in our view, include\nassessment of penalty

PUSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepusarla Subhash, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-13-6, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aigpp 2446 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued

MARPUDI PUSHKALA RANI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Marpudi Pushkala Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), D.No. 12-7-110/2, Flat No. 304, Guntur. Smr Vinay Elegance, Kesavanagar Colony, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. Pan No. Awmpm 8121 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued

YARAMATI VEERA RAGHAVULU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleyaramati Veera Raghavulu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. Gowthami Refrigeration Rajamahendravaram. Services, D.No. 36-10-47, Stadium Road, Innispeta, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aanpy 9557 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued

B.ADINARAYANA,,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE ITO,, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleb. Adinarayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, S/O Ramu Naidu, D.No. 5-9-32, Anakapalle. Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalle-1. Pan No. Aetpb 5443 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued