RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

undisclosed income from commissi on because, the\nassessee could not explain the said transacti on with\nrelevant details to prove his claim that, said income has\nbeen already offered to tax. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering relevant facts, has rightly sustained the\nadditi on made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are\ninclined to uphold the order the learned

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

income from land transactions for Rs.\n1,16,44,500/-.\n66. We find that, an identical issue has been\nconsidered by us in assessee's own case for the assessment\nyear 2007-2008 in ITA.No.1848/Hyd./2019. But for the\nfigures and facts, the issues involved in this appeal are\nidentical to the issue which we have considered

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

income in the status of HUF and Sri G.\nRajendra Reddy being has Karta of the HUF. The income\nreturned in the earlier assessment year is very meagre going\nby the return of income filed for the assessment years 2003-\n2004 to 2005-2006. From the above, it is seen that, the\nargument of the assessee that, HUF was having

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed turnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses not actually attributable for the purpose of business activity which required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission Agents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and not subjected to TDS

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

undisclosed income from commission because, the\nassessee could not explain the said transaction with\nrelevant details to prove his claim that, said income has\nbeen already offered to tax. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering relevant facts, has rightly sustained the\naddition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are\ninclined to uphold the order the learned

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

undisclosed income from commission because, the\nassessee could not explain the said transaction with\nrelevant details to prove his claim that, said income has\nbeen already offered to tax. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering relevant facts, has rightly sustained the\naddition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are\ninclined to uphold the order the learned

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

undisclosed turnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses not actually attributable for the purpose of business activity which required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission Agents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and not subjected to TDS

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

undisclosed income is not a requirement. A perusal of the facts of the case of the appellant would show that there is no proper satisfaction at Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. the threshold level and hence the foundational requirement is wanting. The Court never specifically pronounced that satisfaction note, or the requirement of a common satisfaction note. It is a fundamental

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

undisclosed income is not a requirement. A perusal of the facts of the case of the appellant would show that there is no proper satisfaction at Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. the threshold level and hence the foundational requirement is wanting. The Court never specifically pronounced that satisfaction note, or the requirement of a common satisfaction note. It is a fundamental

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

undisclosed income is not a requirement. A perusal of the facts of the case of the appellant would show that there is no proper satisfaction at Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. the threshold level and hence the foundational requirement is wanting. The Court never specifically pronounced that satisfaction note, or the requirement of a common satisfaction note. It is a fundamental

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

undisclosed\nturnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses\nnot actually attributable for the purpose of business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS