DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

unexplained investments by the AO. The AO noted that regarding the balance sum of Rs.1,35,00,000 a detailed discussion is made in the order of Assessment year 2008-09. 6.5 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition on the same reasoning given

CH.CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU ,PRODDATUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS A.Y.2007-08 10810 BANKbALANCE-SBI 10558 Cash & bank 181535 Balance 3574380 3574380 23. The A.R. contended that once the investment made by the assessee was duly reflected and recorded in the books of the accounts (balance sheet) as on 31.03.2009, then the same cannot be treated as an unexplained

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS has been deducted u/s.195 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, in absence of proper explanation offered by the assessee with supporting documentary evidences such as bank statements etc., the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee for assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act originally under old procedure

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS, maintenance of supporting bills and vouchers etc. 3.1.5. Further the learned AO contended that the genuine investment with explainable sources is neither verifiable nor has support of law. Order of the learned CIT(A) 3.1.6. The learned CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings held that there are no findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS, maintenance of supporting bills and vouchers etc. 3.1.5. Further the learned AO contended that the genuine investment with explainable sources is neither verifiable nor has support of law. Order of the learned CIT(A) 3.1.6. The learned CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings held that there are no findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS, maintenance of supporting bills and vouchers etc. 3.1.5. Further the learned AO contended that the genuine investment with explainable sources is neither verifiable nor has support of law. Order of the learned CIT(A) 3.1.6. The learned CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings held that there are no findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS, maintenance of supporting bills and vouchers etc. 3.1.5. Further the learned AO contended that the genuine investment with explainable sources is neither verifiable nor has support of law. Order of the learned CIT(A) 3.1.6. The learned CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings held that there are no findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS, maintenance of supporting bills and vouchers etc. 3.1.5. Further the learned AO contended that the genuine investment with explainable sources is neither verifiable nor has support of law. Order of the learned CIT(A) 3.1.6. The learned CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings held that there are no findings

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS, maintenance of supporting bills and vouchers etc. 3.1.5. Further the learned AO contended that the genuine investment with explainable sources is neither verifiable nor has support of law. Order of the learned CIT(A) 3.1.6. The learned CIT(A) after carefully examining the submissions by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings held that there are no findings

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

Unexplained investment u/s 69 Rs..1,85,00,000/- 4 9. Documentary evidence is submitted by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings and the' same is' admitted by me as there is no complexity involved which would require the verification of the same by the AO again. 10. After admitting the documentary evidence submitted

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

unexplained cash credit of Rs.42,41,280/- towards additions made on account of undisclosed income from land transactions on the basis of ‘Lokpriya’ notebook found during the course of survey. Accordingly, ground no.6 of the assessee is allowed. 56. The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.7 of assessee’s appeal is, addition towards donation from undisclosed

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

KARTHIK RAGHUPATHI REDDY PADI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded

KAUSHIK REDDY PADI ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.2,50,25,000/- for the current AY made by the Assessing Officer, on account of unaccounted cash invested by the appellant towards purchase of villa, is held correct and accordingly ground no. 1, 2 & 7 are dismissed. The appellant has also challenged the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has recorded